Video Barbie

Here she is, the truly modern Barbie. That's right folks, this Barbie offers a first-person perspective to the kiddies by including a built in video camera. The lens is...somewhere on the front, while a colour LCD screen resides on her back, allowing for an all-in-one recording experience.

She'll also come with online editing software to allow users to make their own movies!

It can record up to 30 minutes of footage and the software allows for the addition of music, other sound effects and some visual effects as well. Available in July of 2010!

Now, what to do about those terrible denim capris?

I have to say this is pretty cool, and as a kid I would have loved this toy. I see the generation of teens younger than me who are so savvy on how to make/edit videos,  using photoshop to edit their pics for the net, writing html code, etc. Imagine what the generation behind them will be able to do at a young age? It is mind boggling. Also, it makes me happy with my decision to not specialize in web or graphic design and instead use those tools to break into another career field. Because if I had stayed in that field I would  have to constantly worry about keeping my skills up to date - these kids are going to put lots of designers out of work in 10 years. The ones sitting on their 10 year old college degrees, wondering why all these 18 year olds are so much quicker than they are. They'll be able to think a webpage into existence, I swear it. Creative designers will (well, should) always have work - but the ones who are simply technical designers...look out.

BTW, it still sucks they made Barbie's boobs smaller and her eyes larger and wider set. I don't get it.

Equality

Today I read this article about female equality in America. It is excellent, you should read it. A couple of days ago I watched the movie North Country and it was good too. My biggest problem with the movie was being able to believe that anyone as insanely and perfectly beautiful as Charlize Theron is would actually work in any field other than modelling or acting. I don't mean to sound sexist in a post about sexism, I'm sure she could be a miner, it's just...man, she's impossibly beautiful, and it is hard to imagine someone like her struggling in life, not being able to find work. Cause pretty people do seem to have advantages. But outside of that, it was good. Educational and uplifting.

The movie is a semi-fictionalized account of a long legal battle that a group of women miners undertook. It was a class action sexual harrasment case, as they had endured a hostile work environment and numerous and continuous insults as well as unwanted touching (and some spunk in locker) when they became the first women to go work at the Eveleth Mines in Minnesota.

Personally I've never experienced that level of sexism or sexual harrasment. But I have experienced a number of the things they did talk about in the movie, and that are talked about in the article I mentioned. I am underpaid. I know I would be paid more if I was a man. I work in a pretty sexist environment. It is frustrating as all hell. Because it is a delicate balance - that earning respect, loving yourself, keeping your paycheque game. Suddenly you have a mortgage to pay and calling out your boss on his idiocy isn't as easy.

I can't imagine dealing with the things that women in working generations before mine dealt with. It must have been really fucking intense to be, say the first female fire fighter. Or the first female line worker at GM. 

I was actually the first ever female 'courtesy clerk' at a local grocery store. I got the job because my mom knew the manager and she told him she knew I would work hard. This manager wasn't keen to hire a girl cart pusher, but she kept bugging him. Thanks mom! So, I got the job.

This job entailed rounding up the carts from the parking lot, and cleaning up spills, and dealing with the 'bottle room', which was the room on the other side of that little black door where you used to put the 2L glass pop bottles for a refund (back in the day when those still existed. Wow, I am old.) That involved a LOT of spilled pop and ants and broken glass. The carts were heavy and didn't link together with 25 cent return links either. It sucked, but I did a bad-ass job of it and was promoted within 3 months. It wasn't all bad. The hardest part came with the attempt to train the fake-nailed over-makeuped woman who was to replace me, and totally failing at getting through to her that sometimes, just sometimes, you might have to break a sweat. In that situation, I suddenly realized why they didn't generally hire women for that job. She wasn't as stubborn as me - she didn't have anything to prove. I was kinda pissed off. I felt let down, when they fired her and put a male, 6' tall basketball player in her job. At that moment, I realized, sometimes it isn't about sexism. It's about the right person for the job. And ultimately, I guess, it was more a reflection on poor management and hiring skills than anything, but I think the manager just had the impression that if I could do it, any girl could do it. A good lesson in sexism on the job. One person can ruin even minor, semi-unimportant inroads that other people make. There was never another female courtesy clerk in the time that I worked there. Which was too long, by the way. My point to this? The fight ain't over man. That manager saw me as one thing: female. The same way he saw her.

I've been generally lucky; I never ever felt scared to go to work. I never felt threatened physically.

But what I do deal with on the regular is the lingering entitlement of older men who feel that being not-sexist on the surface somehow absolves them of all wrong-doing. It seems if they act like their comments are jokes they will be ignored. Worse still they feel like they are giving us some sort of honour by watching their comments in our presence. Worse than that, they don't even realize most of the time that the things they say and do are sexist.

There are two ways women usually deal with with the boys club. One is the ol' if-you-can't-beat-em-join-em approach, the "one of the boys" deals. Yes, I've gone that route before. It's easier. And lots of girls are dumb, and since I fit in easily with the guys it has often been an easier route to take. Look, I like tits too, ok? It is hard not to take that road.

The other oft-taken route is to ignore. I take this one too, sometimes. Better to walk away from that inappropriate comment about my weight/figure than to deal with it head on, right? Afterall, getting into an arguement with your boss about if it is appropriate to refer to a co-worker as an 'old biddy' is a lot of effort, might drive a wedge between you, and really, is it so bad?

But reading this article and watching this movie is a solid reminder that if you aren't fighting it, you are perpetuating it. If you join the guys in their slander talk instead of standing up to them, you are no better than they are. If you don't do something at work because you think it is the 'guy's job', you are letting them leave you, forever, in the 'women's job'. It's a simple as seeing us all as people rather than genders.

I think this gets easier the older you get. Maybe it is confidence. Maybe it is that you care a LOT less about what people think of you the older you get. Maybe it is that you have had a taste of the real world. I dunno. Whatever it is, it is important. Being called a feminist is a badge of honour.

Under Pressure

Earlier today I commented on weddings, and how I don't want to have one. Following this I saw a friend's mom publicly lay on the baby pressure. This happens to me all the time. Not quite as publicly from my mom (her approach is the more subtle "should I save these baby clothes?" type) but quite publicly from my mother in law and sister in law.  Those two are on me like white on rice. They are ready. I can usually laugh it off, but sometimes not so much. Depends on my mood.

Baby pressure is terrible. I have about 50 different answers I give as to why I'm not yet a mother or at very  least trying to become one. People are so quick to judge. 22 is too young, but 28 is too old?


Truth is, it's no ones fucking BUSINESS why I don't want babies (yet?). But everyone and their dog assumes it is their right to ask. Hey loser, did you ever consider that I might not be ABLE to have babies? Perhaps you are touching on a sensive, personal issue? But no. This doesn't cross anyone's mind.

Amazingly, people somehow think it is socially acceptable to ask you about your child-bearing plans, but those same people wouldn't dare ask you if you actually are pregnant for fear that you are just fatter than they recall and it being embarassing for them. Funny that. They are worried about embarassing themselves more than they are about embarassing you into talking about the future plans for your uterus.

Alas, if it isn't baby pressure (which mounts and mounts until it seems it will only improve as a result of a violent verbal outburst that includes the words: VAGINA, FUCK, MINE and YOU!) it is wedding pressure.

Ah, wedding pressure. The best part about wedding pressure, is that people have even less shame about commenting on that then they do about your ability to procreate. After all, all women love weddings, right? All women spend their whole lives waiting for the white dress and princess tiara and big fucking cake, right? All women want their perfect stupid rom-com man-in-white-suit top-of-a-mountain marraige proposal and a three carat diamond....right? RIGHT?

Right after my post today. I was asked. Again. "So, when is your boyfriend going to propose?"

I can't believe how often I get asked about it. Granted, I've been in (what appears to outsiders as, but is not accurately described as) a very long-term monogamous relationship. True, I am common-law married. Thanks government, for making that decision for me. But why is it automatically assumed that I want to get married? Are there really so few of us that don't want to, that we are some rare breed?

At work it is the worst.

It seems when you get to be in your mid to late twenties (or early thirties) and you aren't married to your significant other, people assume a few different scenarios.

In scenario One, you are patiently waitin' for the big question to be popped. You don't want to spoil the surprise, so you've actually never had a conversation about marraige with your partner. Thusly, you obediently wait. There is no regard paid to the fact that you might live together or have been dating for years. You haven't discussed it. You are waitin'.

In scenario Two, you are not so patiently waiting. In this scenario, you have made it known that you are waitin' on the diamond, with intense implied desperation. Your boyfriend/girlfriend/partner knows this, but for some reason has cold feet/is a commitment phobe/treats you poorly. You are a poor, poor victim. You want it but you just aren't getting it. It must be torturing you.

In scenario Three, your partner and/or you are too poor to afford a wedding and/or ring.

I could probably imagine other scenarios that people assume. But why bother? From the things people say to me, these are the three most popular. It is simply not possible that you don't want a wedding. That is somehow inconceivable.

I mentioned earlier that it is the worst at work. My boss isn't the youngest man. He's full of random vague racism and sexism and all the other shit that comes with being white, rich and old. All that said he's a super boss and a pretty cool newfie with three daughters. I say this because he is rad in a lot of ways, and does give me a fair amount of respect in the workplace. At least more than I've ever had from an old, white, rich boss. He's just not that good with...boundaries. After every holiday, and I mean EVERY holiday, including Valentine's, Xmas, New Years, vacations, fuck, FAMILY DAY, he asks me if my partner has given me a "big diamond yet". He assumes either scenario one, or two. I think he means it as a compliment, like, why wouldn't I have one yet, since I'm such a catch? He's not the only one. The head of customer service makes a point of coming to my desk after each christmas break and/or vacation to "see the stunner!"...that I never get. She hides her disappointment poorly.

Look, it's nice and all that people think I'm such a catch that my partner is an idiot for not proposing yet. And I'm sure since I work on weddings from time to time that people think I must really be into it and have something huge and inspiring planned for myself. But it doesn't just happen to me. A coworker of mine gets it too. Over thankgiving she broke up with her boyfriend of 4 years. First day back from xmas, people start asking her where the ring is. She says to me, "I don't even have a fucking boyfriend right now. How do these people think they know me well enough to ask that when they don't even know if I have a boyfriend?" Amen sister.

But, you deal with it, right? You deal. And over time you get up the balls to tell people flat out that you don't plan to get married. You always get the same response: "EVER?" As if your life will not be complete.  Look, I'm not saying I'll never get drunk and elope in Las Vegas. I'm not even saying that it could never ever ever ever happen. Part of me thinks for some reason if I do decide to have a baby, that maybe I would then. But even that is a big maybe, and it definitely won't involve a big wedding deal. I don't have some big moral thing about it. I don't have a feminist arguement against it. It is just not for me. This seems impossible to believe and people look at you with those "oh, you're just saying that cause you are secretly waiting for the proposal" faces they make. I find it insulting in a lot of ways. The reality is, if I wanted a diamond and a wedding I would have it by now. Do I seem like a pushover? Do I seem like the kind of person that does not get what she wants? Why is it assumed that I am some weak female waiting for the marraige Godot? If I wanted it, I would ask for it, and I would get it. That's just it. I don't want it.

I thought I had my rant on this finished for today but for some reason it keeps coming up.  This afternoon I read this great comment by Sarah Silverman about marraige, and human rights. Indeed, it is an interesting time for marraige:
"In the interview, Silverman also said she finds it hypocritical for people to get married today, since gay people can't legally wed in most states. To do so, she said, is comparable to joining a country club in the 1960s that would bar Jewish and black people.
      "Not only would I not get married until everyone else can, I kind of am starting to get appalled by anybody who would get married in this day and age," she said.
"Anyone who considers themselves for equal rights -- to get married right now, seems very odd to me."

Well I'm Canadian so I can't use that excuse. But she makes an excellent point.

I think the weddings I find most annoying are these feminist commitment ceremonies. They really seem well intentioned and all but in reality, how are you thwarting the patriarchy by doing exactly what patriarchal society tells you to? Sure sure you didn't use chair covers and your dress was vintage and you have it at city hall...but doesn't make it any less a wedding and any less a social construct designed to tie you to someone (and maybe god and the government) legally. Forever. Or until you pay a lawyer to fix it.

Yeah sure third wave feminism is all about doing things your own way and being able to express your individualism. Sure, this feminist wedding thing is an improvement on the white dress property-of-your-husband thing, but it is still a socially relevant rite-of-passage that helps you fit into the demographic profile society has created for you. Way to go on the individualism there.

Anyhow, if it is for you, great. Enjoy it. Do it for the right reasons for pete's sake. Love it up. Good on you. But it isn't for everyone, and please world, stop trying to make it right for everyone. It isn't.

I'm really really tired of being made to feel that I am lying about my true feelings on both babies and weddings. Many of us are. Stop asking us, please.

Brooch Bouquets

Three posts in one day. I know! But...am rewarding myself for writing all these horribly hard-to-write motivational emails to people I might fire soon. Brutal.

Anyhow whilst preparing my blogroll (honestly, is that the right word? I don't even know but I don't care cause it's fun to type and say silently to myself.) I visited finestationery's blog, which I visit often to keep on top of trends, how the other half lives, and colour palette ideas for work.

I've talked a bit on here about what I do but currently I have one full time gig, and two side businesses. One is a marketing and design consulting business that I've mentioned, but I also have another business that I only advertise word of mouth- I'm a floral designer. I specialize in custom weddings. I prefer really unusal things but I'll do red roses too. It's not something I advertise, but I can tell you since I would assume many of ya don't know me. On that topic, should I add an email address to my blog? I see others have one. Do you get messages?

Sorry,  I digress. To be a floral designer and make any money, you gotta do weddings. Doing a wedding takes up a whole weekend. Usually a summer weekend. Since I'm at that age where a lot of people are getting married, I get a lot of referals, and generally, since I'm...what some people have kindly referred to as motivated, I can't say no to a gig. So I don't advertise. An ideal summer has 2, maybe three weddings booked. Maybe 4. Depends on the size of the wedding. Upcoming I am booked one weekend in July and one in Sept. I think that's enough for this year, since the Sept one is shaping up to be a doozie.

ANYHOW, (rambles on) I came upon these awesome bouquets upcycled from antique brooches. Aren't they awesome? I love them.

Even more amazing is how much I can love these, and real flowers, and looking at what people in the biz call 'wedding porn', and have amazing, unique ideas for brides, and yet still not ever want to have my own wedding. Never have either, not even as a child or a preteen. My sister always tried to convince me otherwise. She thinks I'm just in denial. A 30 year denial, it seems.

The thing is, the very idea of them upsets me. I don't want some god or the government in my relationship any more than they thrust themselves upon it already. Also I don't like the concept of not being able to leave a relationship at any time. Some say not being married means you are choosing to be together, not out of obligation, but out of love. That's way mushier than I would go, but I get the sentiment. Another take would be that I'm commitment phobic. Maybe that's true too. All I know is, a wedding seems like a bad idea to me. But, that's just me. Besides, I like other people's weddings, so I'm no party pooper. I even cry sometimes, if the vows are sincere enough. Open bar weddings are especially fantastic. It's just the idea of having my own makes me ill. Really the only good part to having your own wedding in my estimation is the party and the honeymoon. I figure, if I ever do feel the need to have some sort of shin-dig featuring my awesome lovelife, that it'll be a party and a vacation and that's it. I might have the very first wedding-less wedding ever.

Poster Boy

Poster Boy is a New York city area street artist, who uses only a razor. He cuts sections out of posters on the street, and rearranges them. Some of them are so, so good. Check out his flickr to keep up with recent work.

Quote Search

I have to find all these uplifting quotes for work. Most of the ones I really like I don't use, they aren't 'mass' enough to appeal to our market. But anyhow, here's one I like from today:

"My passions were all gathered together like fingers that made a fist. Drive is considered aggression today; I knew it then as purpose." Bette Davis

Stupid Girl Toys

I think the pictures will speak for themselves. Christmas is coming, be sure to buy your daughters, neices, sisters and friends things that are empowering...



You too can learn to get down on your knees to do the washing!

So Chic Salon Hair Colouring Kit!

You know, I get that little girls like to imitate their mothers, so cooking stuff and household chores stuff is understandable on some level. Why does it always have to be pink? Have you looked at the 'girls' section of the Toys R Us website recently? HORRIBLE. You would think Barbie owned everything. On that....does anyone else remember a time when Barbie wore colours other than pink?

Polanski

This week on facebook I've been having little discussions about the movement to "Free Roman Polanski". I feel like I want to scream each time I read someone's opinion that he should be freed. I'm sure all of you know the scenario, but in the interest of this opinion piece making a lick of sense, here's the dilly:

In 1977, Polanski, then aged 44, became embroiled in a scandal involving 13-year-old Samantha Gailey. It ultimately led to Polanski's guilty plea to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. According to Gailey, Polanski asked her mother if he could photograph her for the French edition of Vogue, which Polanski had been invited to guest-edit. Her mother allowed a private photo shoot. According to Gaily in a 2003 interview, "Everything was going fine; then he asked me to change, well, in front of him." She added, "It didn't feel right, and I didn't want to go back to the second shoot. Gaily later agreed to a second session, which took place on March 10, 1977 at the Mulholland area home of actor Jack Nicholson in Los Angeles. "We did photos with me drinking champagne," Gaily says. "Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn't quite know how to get myself out of there." She recalled in a 2003 interview that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and how she attempted to resist. "I said, 'No, no. I don't want to go in there. No, I don't want to do this. No!', and then I didn't know what else to do," she stated, adding: "We were alone and I didn’t know what else would happen if I made a scene. So I was just scared, and after giving some resistance, I figured well, I guess I’ll get to come home after this". The victim testified that Polanski gave her a combination of champagne and quaalude sedatives, and "despite her protests, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her".

Polanski was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor. These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. Under the terms of the plea agreement, the court ordered Polanski to report to a state prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation, but granted a stay of ninety days to allow him to complete his current project. Under the terms set by the court, he was permitted to travel abroad. Polanski returned to California and reported to Chino State Prison for the evaluation period, and was released after 42 days. All parties expected Polanski to get only probation at the subsequent sentencing hearing, but after an alleged conversation with LA Deputy District Attorney David Wells, the judge "suggested to Polanski's attorneys that he would send the director to prison and order him deported". In response to the threat of imprisonment — "court sources said the film director, imprisoned in Auschwitz by the Nazis during World War II, was repelled by the thought of possibly serving more time behind bars" — Polanski fled the United States.

So that's the basics of this story. Some say the details are "murky", but I think those details are pretty clear. I'm not sure what could be considered murky. Some suggest the plea bargain was faulty. If so, he should return to the country and appeal. Simple as that.

Why I am so angered by the "Free Polanski" movement is that I simply can't understand why he deserves freedom. Any way that you look at this case, Polanski is still a rapist. I've heard insane things in the media, "...it wasn't rape-rape," from Whoopi on the View comes to mind. I'm not sure exactly what "rape rape" is, but I'm pretty sure that drugging and boozing up a 13 year old - regardless of how mature she is, and then forcing yourself up in her is plain old rape. Even if she wanted it, and begged for it, because she was 13 and could not give consent, it is still rape. Polanski knew she was a child - after all, he had to convince her mother to allow her to model, so it is clear he knew she was a minor. Furthermore, he was photographing this known minor in the nude. But people seem to conveniently forget that part.

There seems to be an argument that because this was a "small" thing that he did, that he has already paid his dues for it. How is serving 45 days in psychiatric evaluation, then fleeing the country to go home to where you are comfortably allowed to travel and work for 30 years punishment? That is not punishment. That is running from punishment.

Polanski entered a plea of guilty. When you enter a plea of guilty you should accept the consequences of your actions, your punishment. If Polanski was innocent of the act, would he not have fought for his freedom in court? Rape is incredibly difficult to prove, so the victim in this case obviously had provided ample proof to the courts. This was even more true in the seventies than it is now. Polanski knew he was screwed, that is why he bargained.

The victim actually sued privately and won. She's gotten her financial settlement. She says she would like the case dropped, because she has moved on. That is all fine and good and I can understand that this is difficult for her. I have experience with why women don't want to go through the courts.

But she doesn't have to - she is not required to testify again because the plea has been entered. It is only sentencing that is outstanding. Furthermore, it is not the victim who is laying this charge, it is the state. There is a reason for this. Think of your average domestic abuse scenario. Does the wife have the ability after abuse and the clarity to know her abuser will likely attack again? Or will she likely make excuses for her abuser, to whom she is emotionally attached? If she is a victim of escalating violence, she can't be expected to think of this person with the neutrality the courts can. That is why they step in.

Now think of a very young woman who is brutally raped by a powerful celebrity. Imagine the scrutiny she would endure if leading this case. She might be tempted to drop it due to public pressure or hatred. The public notoriously not only supports but forgives violent celebrities (see Dre, Dr., Spector, Phil, Brown, James, Knievil, Evil, etc) and blames the victims. The courts must be left in charge so that justice for the victim - willing to participate or not - can be served. The purpose of this is that the justice system protects victims when no one else will. Regardless of if they can afford it. Regardless of how powerful the attacker is.

Some believe that Polanski is being treated unfairly - that because he is an artist we should allow him to do his life's work and not be forced to be responsible for his actions. I can't disagree more. There is no reason that any celebrity, no matter their stature, should be treated in a special or unique way. Some say he was 'framed' because he was arrested in Switzerland. Um, no, that's the law. Perhaps he should have studied that country's agreements with the US a little more closely before he travelled there if he is so hell bent on avoiding sentencing.

Some would say 45 days is enough. No, 45 days is NOT enough punishment for anally raping a 13 year old. Sorry to be graphic, but that's what happened. Some say the judge was an idiot. So he might have been. Well, he's dead. So that's a non issue, isn't it? A new judge can review the case and decide the sentence. It could be community service. It could be a slap on the wrist. The judge being an idiot is not the victim's fault, nor the proscecution's.

Let us not say that he should be forgiven because it has been thirty years.

If he had murdered a man 30 years ago, would we say he should be forgiven for that? What about vehicular manslaughter, he ran over three small children? Or what if he beat a woman to within an inch of her life? Should those things be considered forgivable after thirty years?

If one feels that this crime should be forgiven after thirty years, I am left asking, why is raping a woman something that is so forgivable? Is it because there is the presumtion that somehow the victim is "asking for it", willing or wanted it? Is it because there is a dominant thought that somehow rape is actually sex? I have continually compared this crime to violence - domestic abuse for one, because rape is not sex. Rape is a violent and brutal act. The fact that the media is reporting this as a 'sex crime' suggests that the media would rather portray this as a man having consensual sex with a child (which is impossible) than portray it for what it is: a violent crime.

I could really rant on for days. I'm sorry if this is long winded and boring and you are all "too long, didn't read" but I can't believe celebrities are coming out in droves to say the man should be freed. I can't believe I see people - lots and lots of people supporting him.

I'm ashamed of them.

Read some grand jury testimony at The Smoking Gun.
Read a comprehensive list of reasons people are saying he should be freed and the correct rebuttals here.
Read Feministing's round up of articles on the topic.

Bitch vs. Confident

A couple of things lately have brought this topic to mind.

Firstly, we've got Serena Williams "freaking out" at a judge at the US Tennis Open:


I'd like to contrast this "freak out" with your average, run-of-the-mill John McEnroe freak outs:



Now, how exactly did Serena deserve to lose the match and be forced to apologize publicly, while McEnroe is encouraged by the crowd and his sponsors, over time this behavior becoming his "signature"?

Next we've got Vogue Editor-in-Chief Anna Wintour, branded as an Ice Queen Bitch. Is she really though? Or is she the Editor-in-Chief because she is decisive, demanding and dare I say it, masculine in her way of operating her office?

According to Salon, "she is, by all accounts, a tough, demanding boss, a person who expects nothing short of excellence from herself and others." This behavior, this expectation of work ethic and the demand for excellence is something typical and expected of male leaders, but less commonly expected or accepted with female leaders. According to Anna herself, "[she is] very decisive and [tries] to give very clear direction to the people [she is] working with," which seems completely reasonable. (Anna has been in the media a lot lately because she is promoting a documentary about the production of the September issue of Vogue.)

When I say her behavior is 'masculine', I mean to say that she is not coddling her staff like children. She is not crying as she tells you what you did was wrong because she feels so guilty about mentioning it. I mean to say it seems that she is in control and makes no bones about it. You do not doubt her leadership at any time. It sounds as if working for Anna is like working for your typical male boss. It seems she is calm and consistent and demanding. Annoyingly masculine traits really. Honestly, sometimes it would be nice to see a male boss with some self-doubt.

Unfortunately I believe that women have obstacles in the way of their success that are their own fault. Yes, sexism and male dominance keep us out of high levels of corporate and political structures. Yes, the structure of society is not our fault per se, but there are things we definitely do to ourselves as a gender. At times we are our own harshest critics, and each others worst enemy.

Ladies are raised to be just that, ladies; people who don't say impolite things, are kind and generous and compassionate with people they are close to. It is only the 'tom boy' who is not expected to be that way - and tom boys are expected to "grow out of it" and become ladies eventually. Being kind and polite and compassionate - all good things in the right context, but are these things standing in the way of our ability to express how we really feel? Men are not encouraged to express their feelings publicly - but when they do, no one doubts the authenticity. When women do the same, the are branded as 'being emotional' - in fact we brand ourselves that way. Why do women so often feel that what they think or want is somehow less important than anyone else?

I doubt very much that Wintour got to her level of success by worrying about what people thought of her decisions and instructions. I doubt Serena got to her level of success by being polite and popular and ladylike. Does this mean these women are any less women, any less nurturing or compassionate? Absolutely not! These women have apparently found a way to balance who they are in life with who they should be in the workplace. They know the context in which to be polite, and the context in which to get shit done.

Professionalism. Confidence. Somehow these qualities are not encouraged in women. We're told to be confident, to have good self esteem, but are we encouraged when we show signs of it? Instead we are actually taught that it is somehow rude to express our opinion if it differs with someone else's, and that we should be nice to everyone. Worse still, women are the great at punishing each other for confident behavior. We are quick to dismiss a woman who is confident as a bitch, a whore, a meanie. In the office if you are professional, women call you the ice princess (seen it!). If you are confident in your opinions, people say you are a know-it-all (been there!).

Why can't we respect other women for their strength and confidence meanwhile applauding them for their ability to leave their personal lives and nurturing side at home?

I raise these questions with little in the way of answers other than to suggest that holding yourself back in the workplace in any way in order to protect the feelings of someone else is silly and you should stop that right now. Life and work are different things and not agreeing is ok - it isn't personal, it is professional. Being tough and decisive might not make you popular with other women, but it will make you feel better about yourself. Because being confident is a rolling train, once you get on it gets easier to do.

The Dalai Lama is a Feminist

"During his closing remarks at the International Freedom Award ceremony in the Peabody Grand Ballroom today, His Holiness the Dalai Lama called upon women to help create a more compassionate world.

“I call myself a feminist,” said the Dalai Lama. “Isn’t that what you call someone who fights for women’s rights?”

The audience erupted in laughter and applause. The Dalai Lama went to on say that women are more prone to compassion, since they have the responsibility of bearing children."

source

The Good Body - review

Over the weekend I did blissfully next to nothing, other than sleeping and eating. It was grand. I also read a play called "The Good Body" by Eve Ensler, who you may have heard of because she wrote a little something called "The Vagina Monologues". (Which is, in my opinion, fully worthy of all the hype it recieves. If you have not read or seen it, you should.)

The play found a way to make me feel good about myself, if only in knowing that even Eve Ensler, famous feminist playwrite and activist, also has body image issues she just can't shake.

Unfortunately, I was hoping for something a little more powerful.

She explores the issue by travelling the world, and writing monologues as everyone from Helen Gurley Brown to an African villager.

Ensler suggests that most women in the world are more obsessed with their often distorted perception of one small part of their body than they are with any other aspect of their lives. For that matter, they are more fixated on that one body part than they are on world hunger, peace, or homelessness. They are more fixated on that one body part than they are on acheiving health, happiness or success. If they could have one wish, regardless of age, nationality, race, sex, economic class or social standing, it is to lose weight.

We fixate on our stomaches, our boobs, our legs, our noses. If we choose to mutilate ourselves and "fix" this perfectly functional body part to make it more how we'd imagine we'd like it to be, we then fixate on a new part of our bodies to dislike. We inundate ourselves with images of "good" bodies, and then punish ourselves for not looking like that, even though our concious minds are fully aware that those images are faked and 'shopped to look the way they do. Even the most radical feminist of us self-punishes this way. No wonder we aren't leading corporations and political parties as often as we should. We're too busy dieting.

In the preface Eve writes, "...when one out of three women in the world will be beaten or raped in her lifetime, why write a play about my stomach?" Eve then answers herself, "...because my stomach is one thing I feel I have control over, or maybe because I have hoped that my stomach is something I could get control over."

Control. Women are obsessed with control. Maybe it is because we have felt out of control for so many generations. A lack of choice makes you feel controlled. We are obsessed with controling our food. Our bodies. Eating disorders are the worst side of this, extreme dieting the middle of the road, diet soda the everyday. It is distorted that we believe we are in control by doing this. Then we wish for greater self-control. More discipline. If only.

We've been told we're equals, but perhaps because this isn't really true, and we don't have enough control over any other aspect of our lives, we obsess over the wrong things - things that don't need controlling. Our bodies are fine as they were made.

The play will help you to feel idiotic for wasting any of your precious mental resources on such a dalliance. It does it as well as the Beauty Myth, which is similar in message, though stronger in delivery.

It helps to comisserate with other women, to feel a part of something, to relate. Where the play falls flat is in the stereotypes - the "skinny bitch" makes a few to many appearances while the negative self talk gets tiring and a bit depressing. The author never resolves this and never finds a way out; "...here's what I think I've learned so far: In order to be good, I've got to be a smiling psychopath, deprived of pretzels, deeply involved with a Nazi trainer, fortunately numb from the botulinism, white vanilla fat sucked out with rods, and my pussy tightened."

Certainly cathartic, the play would be enjoyable to see in order to have the feelings of a shared experience. Standing alone, it is missing any reasonable solutions for overcoming the very problems it highlights.

Today's "I Want to Smash Something" Moment

Courtesy of parentdish.com:

"Style." "Interesting." "Music." "Flash." "Up and Down." "Go Round and Round."

This Woman's Work

During my lunch break today I was reading this article in the Metro and it got me thinking about why it is that women are stuck doing so much more work than men.

"Reports from Statistics Canada show that while men are doing more household chores and women are doing more paid work, men still spend only 1.4 hours per day on housework compared to the 2.4 hours on average done by women.The result is that while women have continued to break down barriers in the workplace, they still face the challenge of having to do more work at home than men as well as a double-standard of being seen as innately overstretched by their responsibilities."

The article goes on to cite the controversy surrounding MPP Lisa MacLeod’s testimony in a recent court case as an example of how society views the multi-tasking woman. Society (and Ontario Superior Court Justice Douglas Cunningham) apparently view a busy mother, employee and woman as incapable of "doing it all" properly. But that is flawed logic, since apparently we are already doing it all, and quite successfully. After all:

• Women in the U.S. spend more than $3.3 trillion annually (demonstrating amazing levels of purchasing power)
  
• Women business owners employ 35% more people than all Fortune 500 companies combined
• 95% of family financial decisions are made by women
  
• Women in business will invest $44.5 billion in high tech products this year
  
• 65% of women in senior management positions have children
  (Source: Women and Diversity, WOW Facts 2001)

So here we are, highly functioning members of society and the workplace. Many of us have good educations, work hard outside the home, raise children, do the housework and also manage the household finances. Why aren't men raising the bar on their lives? Why don't they want to do more as a gender? How come men have not adjusted to this new reality? Don't they want more responsibility?

I got to thinking that the answer was pretty simple. If for hundreds of years your role in society was to make money, and come home to be taken care of, would you want that to change? It sounds pretty good, to be honest. I'll take being the breadwinner if I can have a hot housewife.

Why would you, if in that position, be in any rush to take on more of the household responsibilities? What women have taken on is freedom - freedom to earn, both cash and respect. Freedom to control their lives and world to an extent never experienced before. It is no wonder we are thrilled to adapt to this new world full of opportunity.

To ask a man who has had this wonderful freedom in his life to change is a difficult request. Ask him to take on more cleaning, more babysitting, more planning, and so on. It is really no wonder they resist giving up the freedoms they once had to take on more life responsibility. It is really no wonder a woman finds herself nagging her husband to "do his share".

Who wants to do the dirty work?

To be honest, if I could work outside of the home and make enough money to go it alone, I would. If I could have a house-wife or husband (or hired help) that would be swell; someone to do the bulk of raising my kids for me, cooking for me and cleaning for me would be more than welcomed.

Is it any wonder,"...men are quite supportive of women in the workforce but they generally have not, with the same level of tenacity, said "I want to be a part of the home life."?

A woman's work is fucking hard. And does not include 1 hour lunches at Baton Rouge.

Happy Women's Equality Day

On August 26th, 1920, the 19th amendment to the United States constitution went into effect. The amendment prevents any US government level from denying the right to vote to any citzen based on gender.

As a result, in 1971 Women's Equality Day was founded to celebrate this important step towards women being whole persons in American society. Today it is encouraged that we honour this day but continuing to work towards equality in the workplace and it is celebrated by many public institutions.

This morning on the way to work I was listening to the radio and they were talking about this important moment in history. The host managed segue Women's Equality Day to Women's Day in the Courtyard, a marketing initiative posing as a "ladies day" including free massages, mani/pedis, hair and makeup and of course "free samples", which are sure to be a selection of such women-targeted products as air fresheners, face cream and diet drinks. I feel sick.

From what I can read online, this "Women's Day" organization is not really saying it has anything at all to do with Women's Equality Day. I'm not sure if it was a part of the marketing plan to land it on the same day, though I can't help but think it surely landed on the press release, which would explain why the idiotic radio host would correlate the two.

Dear PR Person who has created this 'link': Equality has nothing to do with hair and makeup and diet drinks. Stop talking about it like it does. Thanks.

Target Women: You're Old

I'm pretty sure I've posted some Target Women spots in the past. Unfortunately for you, I'm too old to remember. Or care to check.

Ok, not really, I'm only turning 30 this year but it is starting to worry me. If it isn't the constant baby-making pressure or the, "So, when will he pop the question?" inquiries (both of which are equal doses of irritating and insulting) it is the general reaction of people when you tell them your age. Why do people feel the need to insist you look younger than your age?

I do it too. I tell people, "Oh, I never would have guessed that," but really, of course I wouldn't have because that would be being honest and we all know honesty is not a socially acceptable trait.

But I digress.
Besides, even if I've posted one before, this is new and fantastic and if you haven't checked out the whole series, you should.

This Day in Inappropriate Product Branding

Thongs for Children

As you may or may not know, I also have a blogging gig over at SFYS that is a professional blog, a marketing blog. Today I blogged about the history of thong underwear. Really, having a paid job that allows me to write about lingerie is a dream - but I'm sad that it takes away from this blog. I do have an actual life outside of the internet. In any case blogging about lingerie is pretty sweet. The reason I mention it is because the topic of thongs for pre-teens came up during my research. I glazed over it in my post - but I'd like to talk about it a bit more here.

Personally, I don't think a thong is appropriate for an 9 year old. I guess this is something that has happened to me with age. I was an early bloomer (by which I mean EARLY) and at 9 years old would have probably quite enjoyed being allowed to wear one as a means of exploring my early sexuality. But somehow in the past twenty or so years I have become quite removed from that self (thankfully, I suppose) and now have perspective on how young a 9 year old - or 13 year old for that matter - actually is.

I am all for freedom of expression and freedom of sexuality and therefore, freedom of sexual expression. I argue in favour of allowing Miley Cyrus to model in a bedsheet at 15, but I can assure you no daughter of mine will be wearing a thong at 9.

I am reminded of a recent mall visit where I unfortunately found myself in LaSenza Girl. At LaSenza Girl you can buy panties with "Diva Princess" emblazoned on the ass. These underwear are targeted to pre-teens. They made me upset. Not only because they imply you will might show off your underwear at that age, but also because you are somehow intended to be proud of being a little bitch. I guess that 9 year olds don't quite get this. But shouldn't their mothers?

So what is it that is so wrong with tweener thongs and Diva Princess undies that I find it offensive?

I have two reasons:
1. Companies that market these products are sure that you will either love or hate them for it. Don't think for one minute that the bigwigs didn't sit down and talk about the decision. Because they did. As a result of selling them, they get a lot of negative press. In the marketing world, no press is bad press, in particular for a clothing company. It is a ploy to get us saying their name - and it works. I've already said one in this post. As a result, they are making it 'normal' for girls of this pre-tween age to wear thongs, and creating an interest. After all, they claim to be 'supplying a demand', but aren't they just creating one? Did you need a thong at that age? Did it even cross your mind?

2. Girls have so much pressure in society to be a certain way, act a certain way and be sexy that they really need their childhood protected. It is not that children as young as 11 don't have a sexuality - they most certainly do - it is that it deserves to be protected along with the rest of their youthful freedoms. Sexuality - healthy sexuality - should develop on a personal level, not a public level. By this I mean that young girls should be allowed to explore their feelings and themselves without the pressure of being sexy for someone else. Certainly not an adult or anyone with adult standards. That important stage of development is what is destroyed by sexual abuse of minors, and without that precious self discovery so many women fall into the trap of being sexy or having sex to seek approval, love and self-esteem.

Outrageousness and generally shocking clothing don't get to me. The types that spout off about how this is part of a natural evolution towards more a more revealing dressing style are missing the point. It is one thing for adults to leave the house in something that only technically is a dress, I'm all for that. At the very least, that is amusing to me. Hey, we all like naked ladies, don't we? And adults have adult freedoms, and can determine what is appropriate. But children should be exempt from this. Just like they should be exempt from bikinis, heels, hair dye and false eyelashes. Children need time to be children before being adults. It's not cute, it's not amusing. It's gross.

So where do you draw the line? I say, if you are too young to purchase and wash your own thong, you are too young to wear it.

Pop Goes the World

Pop is a Swedish child whose parents are attempting to raise....it...without a gender. Pop's hairstyle changes regularly, Pop's wardrobe consists of both pants and skirts, etc. Pop's parents say that they want "Pop to grow up more freely and avoid being forced into a specific gender mould from the outset,” and that they believe it is "cruel to bring a child into the world with a blue or pink stamp on their forehead.”

At first when I heard of this news story I was intrigued because I do find it quite interesting in concept. The child is only two - so surely the child will figure out its gender eventually, either through media or other children. Absolutely when the child starts school there will be issues, and I can't help but wonder if the questions and experiences Pop will have in those times will be life- long scars. On the other hand, perhaps Pop will grow up to be a well-adjusted and self-confident adult the likes of which the world has never seen.

However, it seems unlikely to really last much longer. Susan Pinker, a Toronto-based psychologist says, "once children can speak, males tell aggressive stories 87 per cent of the time, while females only 17 per cent." Therefore, at 2, the child is already displaying gender norms. She does go on to say in the article, that later in life there are other differences in aggression and behavior, but I am not convinced these are innate behaviors. I do think the way that boys socialize vs. the way girls socialize has a lot to do with who we are as adults and I'm not sure that that socialization would happen the same without societal norms. But I digress. What Pinker is getting at is that there are gender differences that are born into us via hormones that are part of our development during the second trimester of pregnancy. I would surmise these are also the sort of hormones that would make a child gay or straight or transgendered.

I haven't had a tonne of experience with babies, but lately people can't stop asking me if and when I am going to get pregnant. As a result, there have been many conversations about what I'd 'want' if I were pregnant, and the differences between male and female babies. I am routinely told that girl infants and boy infants are 'so different' and a 'world apart' that I can't help but wonder if Pop's parents are really achieving anything with their approach.

After all, they know the gender. They are changing the diapers. I am sure they are making every effort to avoid the gender stereotypes in their raising of the child, but if they consciously know the child is female, will they really be able to treat it the same way that they would if they knew it was male? The subconscious mind is an amazing beast - and if it can make you dream of people you haven't seen in 25 years (at 30 years old) as if a day has never passed, can it also make you treat your female child with more softness and femininity than you would if you knew deep down the child was male?

It is a well intentioned but odd approach to child-rearing. I think it would be better extended to raising the child with a more normalized gender identity. Giving your child a gender does not immediately scar the child - educating them with a healthy view on society and gender stereotypes, at an appropriate age to do so, would seem like a more normalized approach to the whole thing.

I take, for example, my sister-in-law who is 9, who just last night informed me that "Beauty Pageants are dumb because they only judge you on your looks and that is wrong." She's been taught a thing or two about the world that I had to learn much later in life. She's lucky and I think she'll be one of the strongest women I will know, because she was raised to be the sort of kid that tells off her teacher when she tells the class that "hockey is something boys play" (yes, this also happened, and resulted in suspension, believe it or not.) That right there is a healthy world view on gender. She's into hair, and bugs, and biking, and sports, and singing and dancing and makeup and art and science, because she's been told she can be anything. Telling your son it is ok to do ballet or soccer or art or music or construction or drag performances or science also sets them up to be strong adults with normalized view of who they can be. Gender is not the enemy. Trying to control who your children will become is.

I feel that trying so hard to strip your child of what is naturally present, and then talking to the media about it, (not to mention naming your child Pop) will create a difficult start to life, socialization and school. It is no different than trying to force your little tom boy into a pink princess dress. If you strip your child of both genders, will they fit in anywhere and feel a part of anything? Being different is difficult enough when you are different from 'most' people. Being different from everyone is another story altogether.

While I admire the determination of Pop's parents to change the world, and while I am sure their intentions are pure, I am wondering if they are thinking more about their own experience than that of the child's. I really think that using your children to do anything - change gender roles in society, make money as a child actor, make your partner stay in your life, negotiate divorce settlements, and so forth, is just plain wrong. Children are not lab rats and should not be treated as if they are an experiment. They deserve to feel safe, loved and cared for. I don't doubt Pop feels all these things at 2 years old. But how will Pop feel when Pop discovers it was used to promote and demonstrate the ideals of its parents?

It feels timely to think about this - Michael Jackson has died. Michael, may he rest in peace, is the ultimate example of how you can destroy a human being's soul by forcing them to have an unusual childhood - or none at all. The universal human desire to 'fit in' somewhere, with something, is the force that drives us all. Even those of us who wish to be 'different' and 'unique' wish to fit in with others who are similarly 'unique'. That feeling is the feeling of belonging, of safety, of comfort. Fitting in somewhere makes us feel safe, loved and cared for. I believe it is a basic human right. Michael had his childhood stolen from him and he never felt normal or like he fit in after that. He never felt normal, so he never acted normal. And it eventually destroyed him.

Pop is only 2 - but if this continues, Pop's chance to have a normal childhood is disappearing as well.

Angelina Jolie: A Leader For Feminists. Or Something.

Ugh. Naomi Wolf, did you really have to write an article about Angelina Jolie for Harper's Bazaar Magazine about why she placed #1 on the ...whatever it is, world's most powerful and rich and insanely popular celebrity list? Is work that scarce?

You, Naomi Wolf, author of life-changing thought-provoking book "The Beauty Myth", taking on pop culture as a "serious topic" to be examined? Wolf calls Jolie "...an "ego ideal" for women — a kind of dream figure that allows women to access, through fantasies of their own, possibilities for their own heightened empowerment and liberation." Is this true for you as well Naomi?

Oh for fucks sake. Is it because she can fly a plane? Because she plays Lara Croft, arguably the most masturbated-to video game heroine ever? Or because she's rich and can do whatever she wants? Or is it simply her beauty that enamors us?

Wolf points out that women not only want to be Jolie, we also want to sleep with her. Yes, even the straight girls pick her first. Well, she's hot. Ok, so that's fair. But where Wolf loses me is in her explanation that Jolie 'has it all' and that's why we admire her. "She makes the claim, with her life and actions, that, indeed, you can get away with it. All of it. Against every Western convention, she has managed to draw together all of these kinds of female liberation and empowerment. And her gestures determinedly transgress social boundaries — boundaries of convention, race, class, and gender — giving many of us a vicarious thrill." Hmm. Well, she does fly planes. And she chose to adopt children out of wedlock. Both symbols of different kinds of female liberation.

But can I just take a moment to suggest something? Jolie is rich. Jolie was born rich, to a rich family with ample opportunity. She did not have to struggle to become what she is, she attracted interest, and therefore power, simply because of her parents. I think that's a pretty good head start on the whole 'transgressing social boundaries' part, isn't it? It is definitely a good starting point for acheiving new levels of female liberation. You know, since she doesn't have social and cultural economics standing in her way.

The reality is that Jolie, like so many other women who we hold up as 'liberated' and 'modern' and 'icons' are trapped by the very beauty that made them popular. When it comes down to it, beauty is Jolie's commodity. Sure, a head start from the family helps, but Jolie is the most famous and powerful woman in the world for two reasons; 1. She's stunningly beautiful, and 2. she is stunningly beautiful and knows how to work the media. What else to we relate to with Angie? What other reason do we even have to know or care about who she is and what she does? Everything else is an afterthought that has come as a result of her beauty. Sure, people say we care about her children. But do we care about most single mothers with six kids? Not in the least. Why is Angie an icon? Because she's got great lips.

And isn't this exactly the kind of message Naomi Wolf wrote the Beauty Myth about in the first place? The damage is done on all of us, and now the damage is being ignored for a fluff peice in Harper's Bazaar.

To read these words from Naomi Wolf is particularly brutal. I'm going to go downstairs and read my copy of The Beauty Myth and go to sleep. Beauty rest, if you will.

PETA PRO-?

Something just dawned on me. If you support PETA, does that mean you are also Pro-life?

So I had a little look into the idea. On their official site, PETA says, "just as the pro-life movement has no official position on animal rights, the animal rights movement has no official position on abortion," so this, I suppose should be taken at face value. It is fair to say that someone who supports the right of an animal to a humane existence though, would be the same sort of person who would oppose abortion, though, wouldn't it?

After all, if you are going to spend time and energy on fighting for the rights of animals to live, would you not be the same sort of person who would be spending time trying to make it possible for an unborn fetus to live?

Well, a little research goes a long way. It seems they are playing both sides of the issue. PETA recently posted ads in universities that read "Pro Life? Go Veg!" and ones that read "Pro Choice? Go Veg!"



PETA's official statement on the issue was, "No matter where you stand on the abortion issue, whether you're pro-life or pro-choice, if you want to be kind, please do the right thing and go vegetarian."

I really don't want to get too deep into the abortion issue. I mean, you can guess where I stand on women's reproductive rights. Where I draw the line is an organization who have questionable practices (google "PETA questionable practices" for more details) speaking out on an issue as sensitive and key to women's rights as abortion in order to further publicize their directives.

I understand - people who love animals hate to see them die in order for us to eat. And as a meat eater, I do understand why this is. Yes, it's hard to kill an animal, watch it die, cut its heart out and then eat the nice juicy meat. I would have a hard time doing this. And yes, I buy my meat, already dead from the butcher to avoid dealing with this reality. This is because of consumerism, the food chain, the modern cash/goods market and my removal from my own food supply. I get it, these are complex issues that need deep thought, and if you so choose to be a vegetarian, good for you. I can respect that, even if I don't fully understand why would want to move yourself farther from where you (in an animistic-you-have-carnivorous-teeth-for-a-reason sort of way) should be on the food chain.

However taking an issue like abortion, which is not a 'fetal rights' issue as some would like to present it, and is rather a women's rights issue, and parading it around to try and further your animal-rights agenda, is despicable. To me, it is making light of a very serious issue that is still unresolved in many parliaments and governments, so much so that at any time, the freedom of choice could be overturned. This is a frightening idea for me. I don't like the concept of the government having control of my uterus. And even in countries like Canada (where technically abortion is only legal because by definition it is not illegal) access is limited and the right to a safe, legal abortion is not even fully realized, there is still a lot of work to be done towards securing women's right to choose. So much so, that a campaign such as this one by PETA could be damaging to the movement. Why, PETA, would you choose this issue to ride on the back of?

Just another reason to look at PETA, shake your head, and wonder, WHY people care more about animals then they do about other human beings.