Month: September 2011

Up, up, and away! Nifty’s European Adventure

/ Lauren / 1 Comment

40 lbs of adventure in $300 worth of backpack!

I’m no stranger to European travel. I’ve lived in Latvia, Poland, and England (in addition to Canada) and travelled through many other countries besides. But never by myself. I’ve always had a family member with me (a parent, sibling, or cousin) and most of the planning was done by them.

I’m also no stranger to adventures, though most of them are in BC, the city, my neighbourhood, or in my own head.

Now it’s time to take the plunge and have my own big adventure in a faraway place. Ladies and gentleman, for the month of October, NiftyNotCool will be coming to you from Portugal and Spain. And I will be ALL BY MYSELF.

(Ironically, my Travelling Companion, TC, will be unable to accompany me on this journey. Such is the life of a freelancer.)

My mom and I were talking on the phone the other day about my preparations for my upcoming big adventure. My mom said, “Are you getting excited or are you just scared?” I said, “I’m scared.” And I am.

I’ve bought all sorts of gear for the trip (expensive travel backpack, Lonely Planets, etc.), likely a few things I don’t need, and I think somehow I feel comforted by having done this. As in, look at me. I’m ready for this. Look at my Money Belt. Look at my Not-too-heavy Jacket That Will Keep Out The Wind. Look at my Quick Drying Underpants For Easy On The Go Laundering. I’m capital “P” Prepared. I even remembered to get my tetanus booster.

But in actual fact I am capital “P” Petrified. When I see myself in my Keep Out The Wind Jacket and my Walking Sandals and my Hat With A Brim I see an impostor. “Hey there Girl With a Hat,” I think, “what makes YOU think you’re ready for this? Who are YOU to presume you can be an adventurer and go on a caper all by yourself?”

Portugal will be lovely. Spain will be beautiful. I will meet people in hostels, drink port (that’s the plan, anyways), immerse myself in Moorish architecture and natural wonders, take trains, and look at art. I will visit places whose names whisper like a sand-worn dream: Porto, Faro, Seville, Granada. I will probably get mixed up somewhere along the line, or lost, freak out, and wonder why I possibly thought I could do this.

And that’s why I’m going. Less than 24 hours now. I’m ready. I’m prepared. I can do this. Even if I have to stroke my expensive backpack and Quick Drying Underpants for assurance.

Dan Mangan & 100.5 The Peak’s “Secret Show”

/ Lauren / 2 Comments

I’ve been a Dan Mangan fan since 2009 when I heard first heard the song “Robots”. The sweet-beard-faced Vancouver boy with a voice like rusty angels and lyrics that mix humour and heart managed to convince me that “robots need love too” and I was hooked.

I sang along every time one of his songs was played on 100.5 The Peak, the kickass radio station I listen to at work (listen online at thepeak.fm).

I listened to his album, “Nice, Nice, Very Nice” in my rocking chair in my old apartment many times, or in bed when I wasn’t feeling well. The music lulled me and I thought to myself, “Here is a young Canadian artist I like as much as Hawksley Workman. Possibly more.” Which doesn’t happen very often.

I saw Mr. Mangan in concert last November at the Vogue in Vancouver and was struck by what a warm, talented, and gracious performer he was. His audience loved him and he loved us and even though I was not having a great autumn I had a great evening.

Then I began to feel like I was hearing his music on the radio TOO much. I would hear the opening chords to “Road Regrets” and sigh to myself. I began to lose faith in Mr. Mangan, and wondered if he would ever light my fire again.

Then the Peak began to play a song from his new album, “Oh Fortune”. I realized that I enjoyed humming along. I thought to myself, “I suppose I’d be interested in seeing him in concert again. He was quite delightful.”

THEN the Peak said that they were having a FREE secret show with Dan Mangan on Saturday, September 24 and all I needed to do to find out the exact time and location (which would be revealed two hours before the show began) was either follow their Facebook or Twitter pages, or sign up to be a Peak VIP. I was already doing all of those things!!! PERFECT.

Turns out, Dan Mangan was performing in the Olympic Village at 1:00 pm that day. Holy banana, TC and I could ride our bikes there! So that’s what we did. And it was great. Dan Mangan is just as talented and just as gracious as I remember him. He made sure to introduce his band mates and also mention the other musical projects they were working on. His voice is, if possible, even stronger live than it is recorded. And even though I wasn’t able to sing along because I didn’t know all of it yet, his new stuff sounds lovely (“Oh Fortune” was released yesterday, BTW). And don’t worry, he played all the oldies but goodies from “Nice, Nice, Very Nice” too and I bopped the afternoon away.

Mr. Mangan kindly made my day awesomely complete and neatly bookended my Dan Mangan experience to date by finishing up with “Robots”. Nice man that he is, he noticed that two girls standing at the back had made elaborate robot costumes and he invited them to join him onstage, so they did.

This concert was simply a wonderful way to welcome the autumn on one of Vancouver’s last mild Saturdays. “Secret shows” like this help to cultivate what I think both 100.5 the Peak FM and artists like Dan Mangan are going for: a community of fans that simply love Vancouver, good music, and sharing these loves with one another.

Dan Mangan at the Peak's secret show. Photo credit: my TC

“Why Doesn’t He Like Me?”:Teen Angst at the Cottage Bistro

/ Lauren / 5 Comments

I think I thought this journal was SO artsy. My "Livre d'Amour de l'Orient" certainly wasn't that exotic.

Last night I had the privilege of reading an excerpt from my Grade 11 journal at Sara Bynoe‘s Teen Angst Comedy Night. Sara has been hosting Teen Angst readings (essentially verbatim readings of angst-filled diaries, fiction, and poetry written in the teen years) since 2000.

I saw the Facebook page for this event a month or two ago and thought it would be a laugh to sign up to read some stuff. Unfortunately, my adolescent diaries remain at home in Saskatchewan, so I had to pull only from my last two years of high school, which, while a little less hilarious, still had plenty of drama. The entries I shared revolved around a non-boyfriend “boyfriend” I dated for three weeks at the end of Grade 11. I concluded my reading with a loose-leaf poem I found tucked between the pages of my journal, about the aforementioned non-boyfriend “boyfriend”. It was titled “Letter from the Unloved” and finished with the line, “WHY DON’T YOU CALL ME ‘BABE’ ANYMORE?!”. I think it summed up my feelings about this particular fellow nicely. Needless to say, this young man has not called me “babe” for quite a number of years now.

I was surprised by two things during this evening: firstly, even though I was embarrassed at my naivety, and my listeners found a lot of humour in what  was very serious business for me at the time, I felt oddly supported, as if all the people listening agreed that this non-boyfriend did me wrong, and definitely should have continued to call me “babe” if he knew anything about good manners. The sympathetic warmth of the listeners at Teen Angst reached back in time and made my 17-year-old feel just a little bit better and a little less alone.

Secondly, although I knew this evening would be funny, I wasn’t quite prepared for how much fun I would have. I laughed so hard I cried. Words cannot describe how hilarious and outrageous the writings of teenagers are. I unfortunately do not remember the list of the readers so I cannot credit them properly but a few choice phrases I will remember forever include:

“Nosferatu, I got you”

“Hitler was a moustachist”

(From a teen girl’s attempt at beat poetry)

“I hate ___’s purse. It’s way too small. It looks like a stoner purse.”

(From a young man who really liked the book “The Outsiders” and also several young women, but maybe not their purses)

“Go to bed.”  “NO!”

(A 12-year-old girl describes how her planned rebellion will go down)

Sara Bynoe MC’ed the evening and shared her touching poetic tribute to Kurt Cobain after his death, and her 14-year-old self’s thoughts about writing poetry in general, which she writes that she enjoyed doing despite the “screams of adolescents”. Our evening also included a game involving Sara reading angsty song lyrics as if they were teen poetry and the rest of us having to guess what the song was/who wrote it for a prize of a toffee.

I couldn’t contain my excitement when Sara read, “I’m never alone/I’m alone all the time”. I shouted out “GLYCERINE! It’s GLYCERINE!” and the toffee was mine. Oh yes, Gavin Rossdale, you melt my heart, you and your lonesomeness and dirty hair. Thank you Big Shiny 90s Volume 2 compilation CD. You have made me cool! Finally!

Making good segues was never a talent I exhibited in my teenaged journals and I don’t feel the need to do it now. In conclusion, Teen Angst was great and Sara is great too. If the event comes back to town I’ll definitely try to do it again. I laughed my face off and almost peed my pants. A good time was had by all.

(But why doesn’t he like me? Sigh……………I guess we’ll never know.)

Why I Support Marriage Equality

/ Lauren / Leave a comment

Photo: Dylan O'Donnell 2010 (http://deography.com) - Public Domain

I first thought about writing this post back in July when I saw these portraits of newlywed same-sex couples in New York State on BuzzFeed.com. The snapshots of happy couples celebrating not only their love, but their right to legally express it, is the only proof I need that New York State did the right thing by recognizing same-sex marriage (although it was too long in coming). Naively, I think part of me thought this was all the proof anyone would ever need that legalizing same-sex marriage is not merely the kind thing to do, it is the right and just thing to do. Maybe I thought that this was all the proof anyone would need that far from destroying the sanctity of marriage, allowing people who have maintained a loving relationship through adversity to legalize this bond through marriage would only add deeper and fuller meaning to the institution.

But of course, and alas, I was wrong. As mind-boggling as it is to me, the idea that two consenting adults who love each other should be allowed to marry regardless of gender is not plain old common sense to many people, including here in Canada (you’ll find you don’t hear too many Conservative Party MPs speaking up in support of marriage equality).

I say mind-boggling not because I want to use some hyperbole today, but because I truly don’t understand. When I first found out what homosexuality was when I was a young, it was described to me as “when a man loves another man or a woman loves another woman.” Because back then I assumed that everyone who fell in love got married, I assumed this meant gay couples, being in love, would be getting married too. Much to my embarrassment, it was not actually until same-sex marriage was legalized in Saskatchewan in 2004 and I heard the hoopla surrounding it in the media that I was even aware that gay and lesbian couples had not previously been allowed to marry.

Having spent my entire youth assuming same-sex couples had the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples and being totally okay with it, not even giving it a second thought whatsoever, the idea that not everyone is okay with this, and that this is ANYONE else’s business besides the couple who wants to get married, was a total shock to me. It made no sense to me back then and it makes no sense to me now.

Last summer, I read US District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s ruling overturning California’s Proposition 8, a voter approved proposition renewing the State of California’s ban on same-sex marriage, on the grounds that it violates the rights of same sex couples. In the ruling, Judge Walker notes that,

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples.

If you wish to read Judge Walker’s entire ruling on Proposition 8, it is available on Scribd.com at the link provided.

Judge Walker’s ruling brought up other key points that I thought were important to address. Firstly, that it is in society’s best interest, both socially and economically, that couples marry, providing emotional, medical, and financial support for one another in family units (these interests do not rely on the couples being of opposite genders). The ruling also pointed out that while the supporters of Proposition 8 (the defendants in this ruling) claimed that the proposition protected children from harm, it had already been deemed unconstitutional for the State of California to refuse adoption to same-sex couples on the basis of their sexual orientation and therefore there was no legal precedent set with regards to needing to “protect” children from homosexuality.

I remember being shocked again, and also sickened, when I read the argument presented to the voters in 2008 in support of Prop. 8:

It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage. * * * While death, divorce, or other circumstances may prevent the ideal, the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father.

If the gay marriage ruling [of the California Supreme Court] is not overturned,  TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.

[This information is to be found on page 7 of the ruling]

This is the part that makes me sick. This is the part that makes me angry. This is the part that means I need to write this post. Because what IS the oh-so-vital difference between “traditional” marriage and same-sex marriage, hm? That it’s a loving bond between two consenting adults? Same in both marriages. That it is a legal bond joining two people who live together and share financial resources? Same in both marriages. That it provides a stable structure in which to raise a family? As proven by the number of same-sex couples that adopt or choose to have biological children, same in both marriages.

The only conclusion I can come to is that the defendants of Proposition 8 want to make sure that children know that heterosexual couples are better. Not for any specific reason, but because they just are. And if heterosexual couples are better, it follows that heterosexual people are better too, right? That homosexual people, despite making up 10% of the population, are abnormal, and inferior.  The sickest part of all is not that these people want to trumpet these values among themselves, but that it is so vital that the most important people to receive these messages of hate, and learn to hate and fear others, for reasons that at their age they wouldn’t even understand, are children.

Who’s harming children now? Certainly not loving couples who just want to get married.

The horrific, and too often fatal harm that this homophobic value has on children was brought home to me last Saturday when I watched the play Leave of Absence by Lucia Frangione, the third piece in an evening of works called “Short and Sweet”, presented by ACTivist Theatre and Amnesty International as part of this year’s Vancouver International Fringe Festival. I was incredibly upset by this piece, and the story of its protagonist Blake, a ninth-grader who falls victim to contempt, ostracism, and vicious brutality because she, and more importantly, her teachers and peers at her Catholic school, are confused by and afraid of her sexuality. The harmful effects that homophobic attitudes have on innocent children is made sickeningly evident in this beautifully written and tightly performed play.

Does Leave of Absence and the story of Blake deal with same-sex marriage? No, it does not. But when children are taught that some people are simply better than others (as they are when they are taught some marriages are better), they are also learning the inverse of this better-ness: that those who are not better, are worse. And that these people who are better are normal, while the others are deficient, deviant, and depraved. The saying “children are cruel” is a cliche because so often it seems true. Being a child is scary. Growing up is scary. Children, especially adolescents, are under intense pressure to live up to the expectations imposed by their parents, their school, the media, their peers, and themselves. They want to feel superior, and when you give them that chance, when you sanction and support the idea that some people are inferior to them, when you specifically point the inferior ones out as this one or that one, this gay boy, that lesbian girl, the intense pressure children are under finds a terrible outlet.

Instead of trying to figure out how such nice children could do such terrible things to each other, instead ask yourself who told these children that it was okay. Because if you have told a child that another person is worse than them, is disgusting and abnormal, you have told them that it is okay to behave in a hateful way towards that person. And the harm done is no one’s fault but your own.

One only needs to look at the impetus for the It Gets Better Project to see the real-life consequences of encouraging homophobia in children. Because of homophobia and homophobic attitudes, children are dead. I would posit that anyone who still believes that these innocent children deserved the treatment that led to their desperate actions is the one who is abnormal, deficient, and lacking a loving heart.

Many of the comments on online articles dealing with Proposition 8, for example, are so nonsensical and disgusting to me I can barely bring myself to read more than a few. The hatred being directed at people who just want to live their lives with the person they love is frankly alarming. Most of the arguments against same-sex marriage seem to take their position from the Bible. Well, guess what? You’re in a western democracy. Your country operates through a separation of church and state. It is not the government’s job to uphold your religious beliefs and force others to live by them. Your beliefs and your lifestyle are not the only way of living. If you don’t like it, find another Mayflower and go live on a deserted island where you can be as prejudiced as you like. If statistics are anything to go by, in a few generations, 10% of the population of your desert island will be gay, whether you allow them to express themselves or not.

Or, you know, you could stay where you are, and mind your own business. Because ultimately, even though I myself feel very strongly about marriage equality, whether or not two people decide to get married is none of my business. And it is none of yours. The love of two consenting adults, no matter their gender, does not diminish the love I have in my life. Should I choose to marry in the future, the marriage of two consenting adults, no matter their gender, will not diminish my marriage.

In fact, the more love and happiness there is in the world, the more respect and equality in society, the better every institution will be, the happier my life, and the safer my future children.

Philanthropy, Attention, and Intention

/ Lauren / 3 Comments

Would you save the world if you couldn’t tell anyone?

Since embarking on this blog adventure and signing up with Twitter in November, I’ve noticed a trend amongst a good chunk of the In Real Life friends, tweeps, and bloggers I follow online. For the most part, they’re philanthropists. Many of my friends’ and tweeps’ bios, statuses, links and tweets are in a significant part philanthropic in nature. Some speak to a concern for social justice. Some to eradicating global hunger/poverty/illiteracy/inequality. Some to political, environmental, health, or educational issues. Some simply say they want to “save the world”.

Most tweet-ups I have been to have had a philanthropic aspect as well as a networking one. Donations are collected for the Vancouver Food Bank, or organizations such as the Loving Spoonful. An obvious example that comes to mind is YVR Twestival 2011, which raised funds for the incredibly deserving Beauty Night Society.

Another common trait of the folk in my online social world is that we like attention. Before you raise your hackles or your eyebrows or your typing hands to protest, think about it. We do. Why else would we blog? Why else would we put our thoughts and opinions and actions on a public forum like Twitter (which is, essentially, a kind of mini-blog) or on a friend network like Facebook?  Whether it’s to promote good causes, meet new people, or stir up controversy, we are people who want to be taken notice of. This is not a judgment. This, I believe, is simply a fact. I am, for one, completely guilty of this (see my post about Internet Fatigue if you want further proof).

Where a drive for philanthropy meets a drive for attention is a murky, not-so-fun-to-look-at area that brings up questions of intention. What is our purpose when we blog or tweet about the philanthropic things we do, about our opinions on recycling, about the gala or launch party for a non-profit group we attended that was complete with a who’s-who of Vancouver’s finest networkers and the flyest DJs? Is our intention about supporting this cause or that one, encouraging others to support this or that cause, or simply wanting other people to know about our cause-supporting ways?

Which brings me to my question for this post: would you, if given the opportunity, save the world, even if the trade-off was that for some reason you could not tell a single soul? When I first posed this question to myself I quickly said “Of course.” But then I thought about it. I thought about what I would be missing if I couldn’t advertise my good deeds. I thought about how trendy it is to be a philanthropist nowadays, especially in Vancouver. We have our very own “problem spot”, the Downtown East Side, and many of us pay lip service to the amazing people who dedicate their time and energy to improving quality of life there, while being able to, for the most part, live and work safely in gentrified areas ourselves.

I also find myself wondering about the intentions behind participation in recent breast and prostate cancer “awareness” campaigns. Recently, breast cancer awareness campaigns have involved saucy internet memes like posting your bra colour as your Facebook status, or the latest, posting a status that makes it sound as though you’re pregnant. To me, these campaigns make breast cancer a “sexy” issue but I do not recall that many of my friends who participated in these memes (or myself) have actually have turned their “awareness-raising” saucy posts into real research-funding donation dollars. Movember, a yearly campaign in which men grow mustaches during the month of November to raise money for men’s health issues, is similarly “sexy”. I remember once getting quite indignant about young men I knew who were planning to visually participate in Movember, i.e. grow the ‘stache, but who had absolutely no intentions of going to the trouble of raising any money. Essentially, there now exists a desire to visibly support a cause without tangibly supporting it with money or effort. The act of “raising awareness” may be a philanthropic act, but the intention behind it is not.

Mustached man by Sonja Kresowaty

Unfortunately, with so many worthy causes in the world, publicity is a necessity for groups hoping for access to the limited public and private donation dollars available. Some campaigns, like Movember, or organizations that hold bitchin’ parties to raise funds, have tapped into the fact that true charity, free of any self-serving intentions, is hard to come by, and have adjusted their fundraising strategies accordingly.

And I say good on them. They’ve realized that even in the world of charity you can’t get something for nothing. This isn’t their fault. It’s ours. We expect to give and take, instead of just to give.

If I want evidence for this I need not look any farther than my  own online actions. If I believe in one cause or other, and especially if I make any tangible efforts in support of this cause, you can bet your boots I’ll tweet about it or mention it on Facebook or in this blog.  A prime example is my blog post about my “Five for Five” Project. I didn’t tell anyone I was going to do it and afterwords I could have kept the experience to myself. But I shared it instead. And the comments and support I received in return buoyed my spirits and made me feel wonderful. I gave, and my intentions were good, but I also gained immensely.

Does my little rant mean I think people should stop telling us about their philanthropy? No. At the end of the day, support for a philanthropic or other world-saving cause is support. Whether this support is financial, effortful, or simply awareness-raising, many worthy causes benefit when people draw attention to the good they’re doing. Maybe all of us tweeting and posting our good deeds is a kind of positive peer pressure– “Hey everyone! All of us cool kids are being good people and giving/volunteering/recycling! You should too!”. Very good things do not always require completely pure intentions. The result is still many people doing good things. And talking about it. And maybe good deserves a little reward: a swanky party, supportive comments, the personal gratification of knowing that the people whose opinions matter to you know that you are trying to be a good person.

But I do hope, now that the internet has given us so many tools to discover causes, talk about them, and support them, that we would continue to do good in our lives and in others’ even if there was no party, no mustache, no saucy meme, no attention. That we would continue to save the world, each in our own way, even if we could never take credit for it.

Our actions, regardless of intent, have the power to do much good for others. But I think our intentions, and our ability to be honest with ourselves about them, do a lot of good for us, and the kind of people we want to be. The more I analyze my own intentions, the more I understand the causes I truly do believe in. These are the ones I would fight for even if no one was looking.