Rabbit holes and coloured pills - wtf with feminism?

Okay, here is the problem with feminism and feminist psychology. They're depressing as hell. It's no wonder feminists get a bad rap. They're either fucking with a power system that others are benefiting from or they're offering the oppressed and downtrodden bleak world views. Don't get me wrong. I'm a feminist. I think I'm far enough down the pathway that there's no turning back. I mean, you can't unknow what you know. Once you've opened your eyes, closing them again doesn't mean you didn't see what you saw. It's just every now and then, I miss my old way of living in the world. It was a nice, peaceful, ignorantly entitled way of viewing things. Sort of the like the Matrix, with the whole red pill/blue pill thing or whatever it was. I sometimes feel like I picked the wrong pill.

But, be that as it may, feminism is rarely boring. And it does give me some place to direct all my irritation at modern society. And it dovetails nicely with lots of other political issues. But it sucks the joy out of things. Bleak, bleak, bleak.

Ah, the joys of the dissertation process. I think it's starting to get to me.... lol

Ads that piss me off - #5: Calvin Klein Kiddie Porn

I girlfriend of mine sent this image to me after a morning of outrage riding the rails and staring at it. I had also been seeing it everywhere and feeling quite irked but also somewhat amused at how little creativity is in the CK department. I mean, for the last ten years, have they shown anything in their ads besides underage teens in their underwear? Not to mention that one of their recent lines of lingerie has drawings of underage girls in their underwear as the pattern on the underwear. Cause that's exactly what I want on my underwear. WTF? Seriously.

But seriously, look at this ad. First of all, how old is this girl. Look closely at her face. To me, she looks about 14 or 15. Second, look at the size of her. What is with Calvin Klein and the starved models. It's like the advertising heads have mounted a campaign for well over a decade now which promotes weightism, ageism, racism, and sexism. Way to go, Calvin Klein. And really, can someone tell me how to differentiate this from kiddie porn? Some days I find the complete lack of corporate ethics so sickening. And it always makes me feel so powerless.

It's interesting, you know, when you think about it. I feel like I have so little power. For financial and environmental reasons, I usually take the TTC around Toronto. So I pay $2 a ride with tokens or almost $100 a month on a pass. I am forced to view ads which I find offensive and demeaning. When I complain about these ads, I only receive a standard response (not everyone likes all of the advertising we display, we will forward your concerns to the department which selects out ads, blah, blah, blah). I've never had a complaint I've made to a company responded to and for ads like stupid Julie's Story, you have to spend hours online just to find out what company is behind it. So basically, you just feel like you're trapped on the subway with no way to fight back (especially since I'm too chicken to be a good culture jammer and write all over the posters). I suppose I could drive more, but then I would be forced to look at these ads as they line the streets on bus shelters and billboards. It's like you just can't turn it off. And being at a university, I have ads in the elevators, ads in the bathroom stalls, ads in the libraries. I just can't take urban living. It just grinds down the soul.

CK sucks ass. Stupid Calvin "Kiddie Porn" Klein. Fuck.

Harry Potter and the Evils of Procrastination

Well, it's been a long, long time since I have posted and I offer my apologies. I have been procrastinating on a paper by reading the Harry Potter books over again and now I am overcome with Harry fever! I can't wait for the sixth book. Apparently, there is all sorts of good back story on Snape and why Dumbledore trusts him and on James and Lily. Something huge about Lily is revealed in the sixth or seventh book. Who knows? There are websites all over where they try and figure everything out but I haven't been reading them too closely. I don't really want to know anything ahead or figure anything out. I will say though that there are people out there who take it waaaay too seriously.

Anyway, I've posted a pic from the fourth movie, which I am also excited about. I love Rupert Grint (Ron). He just cracks me up with his great face. And I love his long shaggy hair in the 4th movie. Above is a scene from Yule Ball when he's in his second hand "dress robes." Too funny.
I'm excited about this movie as Goblet of Fire is one of my favourites in the series (I think Philosopher's Stone is my very fav though - it's just such a good beginning!). There's a LOT to pack into this movie though and I'm not sure how successfully they'll be able to do it. I found that was already a problem with Prisoner of Azkaban - the character development and flow of the film really suffered in the attempt to cram all of the critical plot elements in. I also strongly disliked the new Dumbledore. Dumbledore had been played by Richard Harris who I thought gave an excellent portrayal of age and wisdom with the lighthearted slyness and the quiet empathy that make him such a great character in the book. Unfortunately RH passed away and was replaced by Michael Gambon who I don't like at all. He has none of the warmth or understatedness that I associated with Dumbledore. I can only hope he'll do a better job in GoF than he did in PoA.

Anyway, for those of you who are similarly obsessed with HP, I suggest checking out www.mugglenet.com for more info on the movie and the book.


Funny Ron!

Media responsibility

Well, I just finished watching a tape of Sheena's Place (www.sheenasplace.org) annual forum on eating disorder prevention and I'm all riled up. A series of panelists presented on different programs aimed at preventing eating disorders and promoting balanced health. Every single one of them talked about media literacy as a crucial element in health promotion. And it got me thinking, given the overwhelming amount of evidence that exists indicating that media and advertising is detrimental to our well-being, why are there so few checks on what is allowable and so few incentives for supplying more positive, health-promoting media? For those of you who think that all this talk about the dangers of media are crap, I would advise you dig a little. Consuming various forms of media has been linked with lower self-esteem, increased depression, increased body dissatisfaction, desensitization to violence (physical, verbal, sexual), increased feelings of fear and insecurity in the community - the list goes on and on.

Now I know some of you are bristling and saying "Freedom of speech! If we start the censorship process, it's just a slippery slope towards 1984." And I agree with you. It is crucial that there are uncensored outlets for discussion, debate, and disagreement. But I'm talking about corporate responsibility and the responsibility that we have as a society to protect each other from things that are clearly damaging. The truth is, it's not so much about what's removing what's out there (though I would be happier if stupid Julie's Story would just disappear). It's more about increasing the amount of alternatives available. It drives me nuts to hear health professionals talk about the need for media literacy, to see study after study show the harms of media exposure and then to see things only escalate in terms of the blatant use of sexuality to sell product, the objectification of women in advertising, music videos, and well, pretty much everything, the use of violence, especially sexual violence, to add "spice" to tv shows, and the complete lack of diversity in most of the dominant media. We focus so much on how to help children (and adults) deal with the messages coming in and do very little to provide other sorts of messages.

The other thing I would challenge you to think about when it comes to censorship and the media is the fact that we, as in we the lowly consumers, are already largely censored by lack of access. Only those with the cash get to be heard. How much would it cost an individual to run a full page ad in the Toronto Star? How about to put a poster in a subway? How about to run a campaign with newspaper, radio, and television ads? Most companies have large advertising budgets and so the images they choose are everywhere. We have little say about what we are forced to look at as we walk down the street or ride the subway. Occasionally complaints will bring action - I once complained that Chapters had an extremely explicit selection of manga directly in the path of the entrance to the children's section. I'm all for manga but I don't think pictures of women tied up in chains and wearing straps of leather are appropriate for 5 year olds. They moved the display. It was good. But face it, most of the time, complaints fall on deaf ears and nothing changes unless there is MASS public outcry.

Which is what I dig about weblogs - free access. You only need a very little technical know-how and access to a computer, which most people can get at a library or community centre. It's also what I dig about culture jamming. It might just look like graffiti but at least it's a way to interact and to strike back at the images that strike at us. Of course, it's illegal which is interesting. I can be forced to look at ads that are damaging to my self-esteem and increase my feelings of depression (it's not like I can walk down the street with my eyes closed) but I am not allowed to do anything to remove, disrupt, or even slightly mar those ads. The whole thing makes me feel very, very angry and very, very powerless. It's so discouraging, the power of the corporation versus the power of the individual. Grrr, it's enough to make me want to live off the grid. Solutions anyone?

More tales from the couch

So, I am once again hunting for a new therapist after parting ways with my current therapist earlier this week. She just never really warmed up. Plus she managed to create a vibe like I was kind of intruding on her life rather than creating a nice therapeutic space. Her half-read personal books stacked up beside the chair, her too loud classical music playing in the background. The fact that at least 5 minutes of every 50 minute session I was paying for was spent making tea for herself. Not to mention that on her bookshelf were hundreds of books, not one of which was even remotely related to psychology.

When I told her I didn't think we were a very good fit, she seemed quite unconcerned, which in itself isn't a big deal. I actually prefer it that way because it's always a very awkward conversation when you are essentially firing someone. But still, she didn't offer me referrals (which ethically she probably should have) or inquire after my concerns. I don't know.

Spring has to come eventually... right?

I've been feeling lately like this stupid winter is never going to end. And generally speaking I like winter. There have been many lovely, sunny winter days with fresh white snow and crisp blue skies. But it's enough already. And so to remind myself that eventually spring does come, I put up a few pictures I took last spring in High Park.

spring 1 

spring 

Ads that piss me off - #4: Julie's Story (again)

Ah, Julie. Again you grace my life with your message of insecurity, self-loathing, and narrow definitions of beauty. In case you can't make out the text it says "I am Julie. Today I shopped for everything I liked, not just anything that would fit." Whatever, I won't go on too much about that because anyone who has faced plus-sized shopping knows that there is limited availability that means you don't have too much choice. No, what pisses me off more is the picture. What's with the mannequins? Is the ad trying to suggest that Julie has dieted herself down to look like these mannequins? Most store mannequins are around a size two or four and a weight loss of 5-10 pounds represents about 1 dress size so if Julie lost "just a few pounds" and now looks like a mannequin than Julie was a size 4 or 6 when she decided she was too fat and that this was a medical crisis necessitating medical intervention.

Anyway, so I was looking at the ad and thinking "Is this ad trying to say that this is what women should look like, these mannequins?" and I thought "No, no advertiser in their right mind would actually set up that kind of a message." It's one thing to say women should be thin but to be mannequins - faceless, lifeless dolls to dress up and stare at? Then I started thinking, "Why aren't the mannequins wearing any clothes? Isn't the point of this ad the "joy of fitting into fashionable clothes?" So then I thought, "Oh, maybe Julie is supposed to have bought all the clothes right off the mannequins." Which would again reinforce that Julie has dieted herself down to the size of the mannequins, since she bought the clothes they were wearing. So anyway you cut it, this ad is really saying the women should look like the mannequins.

And look at the mannequins in this ad!! I mean, the one on the right has NO bum. Even thin women still have bums. And then there's the fact that they are all naked - whether this is to emphasize their thinness or to hint at sexuality or to strip women of individuality by reducing them to generic forms I'm not sure but given the ad is focused on clothes, I think it's weird. And why is the one holding a purse? And notice how they're all facing away from the camera. Much like the lingerie ass and thigh shot in the other ad, it seems that the people at Julie's story have something against showing women's faces. Once again, I can't help but imagine how this ad could have been different - how about a laughing, smiling woman spinning in a new dress (I know it's the ultimate weight loss cliche shot, but you get my drift) or a woman piled down with shopping bags and a big grin on her face. How about some personality, some individuality, some, oh, I don't know, living people???

Anyway, to sum up - women as lifeless, plastic, generic, faceless, shapeless, skinny objects to be posed and looked at. Women who are larger than mannequins needing to undergo medical treatment (which is never, ever safe) for weight loss. This ad is creepy and disturbing. I think I find it more offensive than the ass and thigh ad. Look closely and think about it for a minute. It is some fucked up shit.

Stupid Julie's story. Still pissing me off.

Fox and feminism?

So a week or two ago, Fox aired "Stars Without Make-Up" or something like that - basically an hour long show catching celebrities without make-up. I didn't watch it so you'll have to forgive me if I get the details wrong. I've always found the "stars without make-up" concept offensive and I see it frequently on the magazine covers at the "kiosk of higher consciousness" at my subway station so I figured the Fox version didn't have anything for me I hadn't seen before. Anyway, apparently the show was so successful that they're planning a part two. And, to add to the drama, apparently some of the featured stars are banding together to take legal action of some sort.

Anyway, I started thinking about the thousands of people that must have tuned in and wondering at the mass insanity that is North America. It seems like a no brainer that, as a feminist, I should raise a call to arms about this show. But the more I think about it, I'm not so sure. Don't get me wrong. I think it's absolutely gross to stalk these celebrities, catch them in their normal everyday life and then plaster it all over TV and make fun of them. Since I didn't see the show, I don't know if it was men and women but I'm going to assume it was mostly women and note it as one more instance where the exterior matters so much more than the interior.

BUT, I think there is something important about seeing celebrities without their make-up. In these days when 50 is the new 40 and everyone between the ages of 35 and 55 seems to look the same on television, I think it's actually crucial to understand that there is a different reality. That even with botox and facial peels and all the rest of it, people do age. Wrinkles do come, skin does sag, the glow of youth does fade. Sadly, the youthful beauty is the only beauty we recognize. Even as women have gained power in Hollywood and the sway of the boomer generation means that more 50+ women are gracing the small and big screens, it seems that the flawless complexion of a 25 year old is still necessary. And when Susan Saranden and Julianne Moore look perfect in their cosmetics commercial, laughing about their eternal youth and beauty (or perhaps how lame the commercial is and to cover the sickly feeling of shame that is creeping up on them as the cameras roll - look close, you can see on SS's face, lol), I do think that we need someone to show that underneath it all, away from the stylists and the lights, they look like regular women.

The next step, of course, is to see the signs of age as signs of wisdom, health, and beauty and to recognize the glow of a happy, contented person as more beautiful than the glow of L'Oreal blush. To paraphrase Naomi Wolfe, instead of covering up our natural glow with foundation and putting on a fake glow with powders and cremes and calling that beauty, we need to see that the true source of beauty is that light that burns within, shines in our eyes and our faces and lights up the world.

My lovely doggin

To take the edge off of all my recent griping and ranting, I thought I'd put up one of my favourite pictures of my dog, Buddy. This was taken at Christmas time at my parent's cottage. I can't remember if it's me or my husband under the blanket with him. Anyway, Buddy snuggled in and fell asleep and one of us snapped this super cute pic.

Tales from the couch update

For those of you who are interested in therapeutic relationship issues, you'll be pleased to know that I worked out the whole group therapy issue to my satisfaction. Jury's still out on the therapist - in some ways I really like her but the warmth factor is a bit low. Plus she has a very strange way of ending sessions that I haven't got my head wrapped around yet. The first couple of times we met, she sort of saw me to the door (I have to go through her living room to leave). This time she got up while I was writing out my cheque and started checking her messages without saying a word to me. When I left, she had a her back to me and was on the phone. Anyway, we'll see, these things take time. Keep your fingers crossed for me!

Ads that piss me off - #3: Design Guys

So this ad has been all over the subway stations for a month and it's been bothering me and I haven't been sure just why. Well actually, it didn't bother me right away. I like the design guys, Chris and Steve. They're funny. Their show is enjoyable. And I like the pink dress featured in this ad. It did bother me somewhat that interior decorators can just magically be fashion designers but whatever. But after seeing this ad, day after day (I see it at least 6 or 7 times a day), it began to eat away at me. And I finally figured out what it is. There are no women in the ad. Just stupid headless mannequins. The actual women they are helping dress for events apparently aren't that important. They're just inanimate objects for Steve and Chris to decorate, just like walls and couches and corners that need plants. Why let their presence detract from the true stars of the show?

Now I know some of you probably think I'm going too far with this one. After all, compared with Julie's story, this is a feminist's dream. But I'm just tired of advertising that features women as interchangeable objects of convenience. I'm tired of seeing body parts instead of whole people. I'm tired of seeing women's personalities and minds left out of the picture. And I do kind of have a hate-on for fashion trends but that's a whole other rant. And I'm disappointed because Chris and Steve seem like nice, reasonable men on their show.

The last thing I will say is that I find Life Network's advertising over the last year to be extremely offensive. Some of you may remember the ads for "The Next Top Model" that were out last year that pictured women from the back, in thongs and heels, with one of the women pinching another one's ass. I think it was supposed to make her lose her poise or something, I'm not quite sure. Anyway, Life Network gets my "Loser Award" for today for it's shitty advertising. Especially considering most of their viewers are women. I mean, really, WTF?

Tales from the couch

So I have a new therapist. I am not sure yet if I like her. I have only seen her twice. The first time, I really liked her. The second time, not so much. Nothing irritates me more than therapists who, after knowing me for all of 45 minutes, make sweeping generalizations about my life and my problems. Which this one did. Had me all nailed down. Not only that, she kept harping on me joining her therapy group as an adjunct to individual therapy. Because of course I have both the time and the money to go to therapy twice a week. Why wouldn't I? I love it when professionals become so rich (she works from home in one of Toronto's most expensive neighbourhoods and her husband is an architect. Yeah, they're loaded) that they lose all sense of the fact that not everyone has $200 a week just lying around taking up space on their dresser top. Anyway, we agreed to "revisit" the issue later. We'll see if I'm still visiting her later.

Anyway, the whole thing pissed me off, especially when I stated quite clearly that it was not in my budget (hello, student, you know, one who pays for the honour of working for others for free). I thought it was extremely disrespectful, not to mention classist and condescending. It also reminded me of this time I went to see a psychic. On the spur of the moment when I was in undergrad I decided to stop in at a psychic on the way home. The sign in the window said she would read palms for $5. Once inside, I was informed the price was $30. I (stupidly) told the woman I only had $15. She (of course) agreed to do it for $15. So then I sat there while she briefly glanced at my palms and then told me my aura was so clouded with astral junk that there was no way I would be able to turn my life around or solve any of my problems until it was cleansed. Which she could do for me. For a price. So basically I paid $15 for a commercial. And not being one for conflict (hence the therapy), I paid the $15 and went on my way feeling royally screwed.

Ah life. What can you do? Just keep on trying, I guess. :)

The "sinful" and the sinful

I have been reading my sister's blog (everythingisaspoon.blogspot.com) in which she had a good go at some of the backward ass ideas people hold in the states (and sadly here in Canada too) about all the ways that scary homosexuals are attacking their culture and values. She was discussing some very weird reactions to gay teachers (such as removing them from schools for being "pro-homosexual). Up here of course is the ever contested gay marriage debate.

The thing that I just can't understand is why people can't seem to see that this is a human rights issue? Everyone always cries about religion and God and the abomination that is homosexuality. But that's just fear disguising itself as religiosity. It's control, oppression, and hatred hiding behind religious texts that are so vague that they can be used to fit pretty much any cause.

Ugh, you know what, I can't even keep writing this post. This whole issue is so backwards, so prejudicial, so full of hatred and ignorance it just makes me sick. It doesn't matter what your religion says, what your community says, what even you say or what I say. Anti or pro, it really doesn't matter. Whether 50% of Canadians support gay marriage, or 95% or 5%, it doesn't matter. At the end of the day it's a human rights issue. We all have the right to make a living, to exist in peace, to be married and have families. If you substituted words like female, Jewish, Muslim, black or immigrant for the word homosexual, people would be screaming discrimination right left and centre. HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE. That's all it is.

Freedom of religion means living in a pluralistic society in which we respect each other's religious beliefs rather than - ugh, I'm doing it again. That's it. HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE.

Coincidence?

Hey all,

Well excitement of excitement (not really but whatever), I have recently noticed a change afoot in the kiosk at my subway station (see previous post "Sexism in the City" if you missed the initial rant and care for the background). While it used to be approx 45% men's mags with naked women on the cover, 25% women's mags with naked women on the cover, %25 entertainment trash (Brad cheated on Jen! Kirstie Alley too fat for sex! Nick's been kicked out - Jessica in tears! - this is a whole other rant on the wasteland of entertainment "news" that I will come back to another day) and 5% other, there has been a bit of a shift lately. It seems more recently that one or two of the naked women mags have given way to some general interest mags. They've actually been displaying a Chatelaine magazine with Easter eggs on the cover for at least a week now. Feel free to insert a clever Freudian remark about eggs and women's reproductive value and how it ain't that different from naked women if you so choose, but I myself do not care so much for Freud and so I am celebrating a bit of welcomed variety. Has the kiosk owner perhaps been reading my blog? Or noticing the scathing look I give the kiosk every time I pass it? Or is it all just a coincidence? Just one of the many mysteries of life. Either way, I'll take it!

Ads that piss me off - #2: Julie's Story

All right, get a coffee, get comfortable, cause this is going to be a long rant.

So I'm sure you've seen this ad campaign on TV - mention of mysterious "medical treatments" for weight loss featuring women with flat stomachs and normal looking thighs bemoaning their weight on the bathroom scale as they imagine what they would do with just "a few pounds less." Things like "I'd go shopping -right away!" and "I'd do a strip tease for my husband" and other such cliches. Well, they have now invaded the subway line in force and this was what greeted me at 8:15 on my way to work (which by the way involves understanding why young women develop adversarial relationships with their bodies as they go through puberty. Hmmm, let me think about that).

So let's start with the obvious. Women's sex sells. Put an ad of an ass in lingerie in the subway and get everyone's attention. I like that we're supposed to be experiencing this from the woman's point of view. "If I weighed a few pounds less, I'd do a strip tease for my husband." Well, where's the picture through her eyes of a loving and excited husband? Why are we not seeing the scenario - the room, the mood, the moment? Or how about even a picture of her still in the robe with a mischievous glint in her eye in anticipation of the fun of this? Or how about even a picture that includes her face?

But no, instead we get ass and thigh in black lace. And they're perfect ass and thigh. No cellulite, no scars, no flaws whatsoever. And they're, of course, a white ass and thigh. So the message is as always, thin, perfect, white. And that the only thing a woman has to offer for sex is her body. We don't need to see her face, her reaction, her emotions, her experience. We don't even need to see her whole body. Just her ass. That's all that matters. Another ad that purports to be for women and pro-women that has reduced women's sexuality to their bodies - oh, sorry, make that their "a few pounds less" perfect bodies.

Not to mention the fact that most men I know who would enjoy a strip tease wouldn't really be too concerned about an extra five pounds. I think they would like to see their wives being sexy regardless of five pounds. Most of the men I know wish their wives, girlfriends, lovers were more comfortable with their bodies and would be more comfortable with sharing their sexuality. This ad only promotes the fear in women that we are not sexy if we aren't perfect. It makes us hide our sexuality, remove it from our intimate relationships, and leave entire parts of ourselves unexplored because we are not perfect. It closes us off from ourselves, it closes us off from our partners, and interferes with our ability to express our sexuality freely, and it undermines our most important relationships.

What pisses me off even more is disguising this sort of damaging messaging as health promotion. Yes, way to promote health by encouraging women to obsess about their bodies, to feel that "a few pounds" "overweight" is a crisis requiring medical intervention. And let's be honest, there has never, ever, ever been a safe weight loss medical treatment. From PhenFen to ephedra to liposuction to very-low-calorie diets, none of them are safe. We're talking heart failure, kidney failure, death, unsafe. So the chances are that whatever this ad is promoting is also unsafe. And for the sake of 5-10 pounds, women should be risking their health? What????? WHAT??????

If we truly wanted women to be healthy, we would encourage them to keep their weight at a level that is medically healthy (and by that I mean if we removed all the crappy pressures and all the social problems that set women and men for that matter up for conflictual relationships with food and created a society that actually promoted healthy eating by making good food plentiful and affordable food and promoted exercise by making public spaces safe and inviting and made people of all sizes feel welcome, once all that is taken care of, the weight our bodies naturally settle at when free to just be) and then make peace with that whether it's 125 pounds or 165 pounds. We would encourage them to accept and celebrate themselves and enter fully into all of their relationships free of fear and self-monitoring. We would recognize the mutual and relational aspects of sexuality along with the purely sensory ones. We would allow women to live as whole, complete beings, "a few pounds" and all.

Stupid Julie's Story. Pisses me off.

Norfolk Terrier - how cute is she!

!

Westminster dog show

So this Monday and Tuesday were the Westminster Dog Show in New York City. A German Short-Haired Pointer named Karlee won - very lovely looking dog. I myself was rooting for either the Great Pyranese (the white dog above - not this exact one, but that's the breed), or the little Norfolk Terrier to take the title but alas, they did not. Not that I know anything about judging dogs against the standard - I'm all about cuteness and personality. The little terrier took twice as long to make it down only half the ring as the other dogs did to do the whole ring - little short legs and all, very cute.
It was also a very nice media experience. I was not feeling well over the past week and found TV a little too much. I've noticed lately as I've been struggling with high stress levels that TV is much too stimulating. Too much colour, blaring sound, whizzing graphics, and super-rapid cuts. It aggravates my headaches and has actually been making me feel nauseous lately. It was nice to watch a low-key show - wide green ring, long shots with minimum detail in the frame, and two commentators conversing - conversing, not arguing, shouting, or swearing - at a nice medium tone of voice. I wish more programming would just take it down a peg to a more digestible pace of viewing. Plus, you know, dogs. Who doesn't love it?
Speaking of dogs, our Buddy was very naughty this weekend and has lost his off-leash privileges for quite a while. He took off on me for a full hour, running through the woods. Every now and then he would drift into sight, looking straight at me and turn and run in the other direction. And he had lost one of his boots (he wears them to protect against salt). I'd see him streak by in the distance with only three boots and be so mad. When I finally got a hold of him and tracked down the boot, I was far too angry to put it back on him (it's a bit of a process) so instead decided to avoid salt as much as possible on the way home. So here I was so angry, covered in twigs and scratches from chasing him through the bush, trying not to take it out on him (he has no idea why I'm mad, dogs have a 5 sec memory for understanding actions and consequences) and every minute or so someone stops me - "Do you know your dog is missing a boot?" Finally I resorted to carrying the boot in clear view in front of me so in order to avoid me completely snapping at some well-intentioned elderly man.
Anyway, our dog, clearly not as well-trained as a show dog. The next day Mark "took him to boot camp" and was super strict with him. Buddy was so upset - he sulked all day. But don't worry, we all made up and are now getting along fine. But with a leash when outside. Always. No matter what.
Westminster - yeah!

Hypocrisy paralysis

As I set about my dissertation proposal and start to envision my research project (running a consciousness-raising/activism group to combat body dissatisfaction in women), I come up against the dilemma that faces many feminists or really any one of us who wants to make some sort of change in the world - how can I possible complain about X when I Y? How can I possibly complain about women feeling ashamed of their bodies when I myself diet and want to be thinner? How can I possibly complain about sweat-shop labour when I wear Nike shoes? How can I possibly be a feminist when I'm thinking about taking my husbands last name? It's the trap of thinking that unless I do everything perfectly myself, I can't criticize anyone else, can't advocate for another, can't stir up some action for change. Let he is without sin cast the first stone.

Well I say fuck it. Cast your stones. This way of thinking is a trap that keeps us from creating change in our world. You don't have to fix everything to fix one thing. If everyone recycled one more toilet paper roll, think of how much waste would be diverted from landfill. If everyone bought one more indie mag, think about many alternative media would thrive. If everyone gave $1 to a local charity, think how much money would be raised. I've said it once, I'll say it many times (or rather Walt Whitman will) - "Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself (I am large - I contain multitudes)." Don't get stuck in hypocrisy paralysis. Taking one action, however small and imperfect, is better than taking no action. See if your stone can make a dent, however slight, in sexism, racism, the trashing of the environment, the isolation of North American culture or whatever else raises the righteous anger.

There, now I can return to this and read it whenever I begin to doubt that I do what I do for a reason and that there is meaning here.