Month: November 2013

NiftyNotCool Celebrates Three Years

/ Lauren / Leave a comment

389-3rd-birthday-cake2Being committed to something for one year is a feat. Continuing to commit for a second year is a doubling of that feat. But when you’ve been keeping on for three years you’re kinda just…keeping on. And once you reach this milestone which isn’t a milestone (given that three-year anniversaries of anything are largely unrecognized), you may wish to take stock of what continuing this commitment has meant to you, and what it may mean going forward.

I am doing this now.

In preparation for writing this “three-year bloggerversary” post, I decided to look back at my very first post, published on this site on November 29, 2010. It is called, rather embarrassingly, NiftyNotCool: A Whine and Cheese Introduction (I assume because it’s whiny and cheesy?), and I read it in the hopes of discovering what had changed for the blog between then and now. I expected to laugh at the silliness of me, the way I do at my diaries from junior high or the letter I wrote at 12 to myself at 16.

Instead, I realized with a shock of disappointment that I had lied. Or rather clumsily skirted around the truth with regards to my reasons for starting a blog:

I have recently had to pull myself out of a pit of gloom and crankypants behaviour.

Ah yes. The “pit of gloom and crankypants behaviour.” In other words, I had a broken heart (I was not willing to admit this on the blog at the time because I wanted, and still want, a blog that is not about my love life). Even prior to the breaking of my heart, I was completely and utterly intellectually bored in a way I have never been bored before, and consequently angry most of the time (this was the crankypants behaviour part; the gloom was the sadness that rode on my shoulders for months and months).

In the inevitable period of self-reflection that has followed, I have realized three things. Thing One, I need something to occupy my mind, and make use of the brains that have been growing lazier and lazier since I finished my undergrad.

This part is true. My world had gotten a lot smaller since completing my BFA, and, as I said, I was bored.

Thing Two, spending the day in my pajamas and refusing to leave my bed because the world makes me sad is not helpful to anyone, and the only way my whining could be construed as slightly beneficial to the world is if it is presented in a structured and (hopefully) well-thought-out manner.

This part is also true. As much as I definitely possess a left-leaning bias, and as much as I don’t have the time to research all of the issues I write about as much as I’d like, I have generally tried to be thoughtful in expressing my opinions. I’m not sure if my “whining” is beneficial to civilization at large but since I am blogging about the things that upset me instead of leaving vitriolic comments all over the internet like other angry bored people I believe it has been, at the very least, less harmful than the alternatives.

To address Thing One and Thing Two, I decided that I might like to take a crack at blogging.

This is a total lie. I’d been thinking about starting a blog long before my heart broke and I fell into a pit of gloom, though funnily enough, I had never imagined blogging under my real name until it happened. I guess at that point I felt I had very little to lose and wanted to put myself out in the world and prove that I could be impressive, at least a little bit. At the time, writing the blog and being active on Twitter went hand in hand so I used tweet-ups and blogger meet-ups as excuses to get off my couch and stop re-watching Pride and Prejudice. Even though I am no longer active in this “scene” (I don’t think I’m the kind of person who should have a “scene” anyhow), I am grateful for the distraction and occasional genuine good times Twitter provided. But I digress:

For a 24-year-old I am ridiculously technologically inept, and if I don’t hop on a computer now and use it to do more then check my e-mail and watch the Rick Mercer Report, I might never know how to use one again.

Again, this is untrue. I am not technologically inept. I like technology and use it all the time at work and am generally good with it. Rather than being technologically inept, what I really am is skeptical, especially when it comes to social media. It’s not that I don’t or can’t understand the technology. It’s that I don’t care to be on the cutting edge of its implications–I don’t need it to change my world. I’m happy to let the first users work out the bugs and join the party when it’s in full swing and there’s no getting around it. For example, though I love my iPhone, I’m still not 100% sure that having one has been good for me.

My decision to try writing a blog…brought me around to realizing Thing Three: I am not cool.

The second half of this sentence is true. I’m not cool. But this wasn’t something I first realized when I decided to write a blog, I’d known this for a long time. I decided to write a blog because I am not cool and I felt this uncoolness in a very deep and personal way. The blog is called “NiftyNotCool” in an attempt to own my lack of cool (and because the websites “When this Blog Rolls Over” and “I Am a Dinosaur” were already taken). My social-media moniker has had the unintended consequence of leading people to believe I am more self-deprecating than I actually am, and even Raffi, bless his heart, has taken the time on Twitter to tell me he thinks I’m cool so I won’t feel sad for myself (thanks Raffi!).

Now that I am no longer broken-hearted, and now that I am no longer bored (working full time and studying English on the side have pretty much made boredom a luxury), my original reasons for starting a blog (i.e. “Thing One” and “Thing Two”) are no longer applicable to me. I also have no plans to monetize the blog or use it in any direct way to further a career. So why do I keep on? Make no mistake: blogging is work, and it must be admitted that in a middle of a busy week the last thing I want to do is blog and even now I just wish I was going to sleep instead of sitting on my bed with my laptop heating up my thighs and my restless toes wiggling in my peripheral vision. There have been many times when I have thought to myself, why am I doing this? Why don’t I just stop?

I wondered if my three-year bloggerversary would be a good time to call it quits. Even now, as the clock nears 1:00 a.m., I am wondering if quitting after this post would be a good idea. But I don’t think I will. I have posted at least once a week EVERY week for THREE YEARS and I’m not sure I want to break this streak just yet. Though I don’t always have much time to write (and occasionally not much to write about), when I do have something I really want to say I want my platform to be there for me, and I want the precedent I have set to motivate me. If I decided I would just post whenever the heck I felt like it, I would never post anything. I would keep putting it off and putting it off until the issue was no longer relevant and then feel bad about myself for not saying something I wanted to say. Though my readership is small, I feel a responsibility to them as well. When I read a thoughtful comment or hear from a friend or acquaintance that something I wrote touched them, I feel great, and humbled, and glad that I have this blog.

I recently read a blog post by author Kim Thompson, the gist of which is that if you don’t have anything to blog about, don’t blog. While I am fairly suspicious of the merits of “content generation” for its own sake (especially as part of a business model), I think there is a difference between simply “generating content” as a product, and writing as a process.

My blog is a process. I might not begin the week knowing what I’m going to write about, but I know I’m going to write. The wheels keep turning and as I write I get better at it. Though I’m not happy with everything I post, the fact that it must go up means that I can’t give in to the paralyzing fear of mediocrity, and as an artist, this is one of the most important tools I can have. If I twiddled my thumbs and waited for my masterpiece to come along, it never would–there would be no foundation for it, no process through which to manifest it.

NiftyNotCool is a process. This virtual person who tweets and blogs and tries to be good and oh-so-clever. Her virtual heart isn’t broken anymore and she no longer needs her self-deprecating virtual armor but I’ve become fond of her. We’ve come this far and there’s still no end goal in sight.

Which is fine, I guess. Life is a process and the blog is part of it. It may change someday; it may get a new look or a new name or a new medium. I may not always be able to post as often as I do now. But it’s not really the blog itself that matters, it’s the process.

Three years from the first step, and I think I finally figured out why I keep going.

People Powered: the No Enbridge Pipeline Rally

/ Lauren / Leave a comment

On Saturday, TC and I joined thousands of concerned Metro Vancouver citizens at the No Enbridge Pipeline Rally, the Vancouver edition of the Defend Our Climate, Defend Our Communities national day of action.

I was happy to lend my voice to the choir of thousands upon thousands of Canadians coast to coast who rallied for an environmentally and ethically responsible future, and the theme of this particular event (No Enbridge Pipeline) was also personal for me. Some people (i.e. politicians and media) often like to insist that shipping oil by pipeline to the coast would be safer than shipping it by rail, but the problem for me is not the mode of transportation. I don’t want tar sands crude reaching the BC coast at all, because once it does, it will be loaded into tankers which will navigate some of the most pristine and dangerous coastline in the world. It would take just one of these massive bitumen-heavy tankers to have a mishap (and it’s not a question of IF this will happen, it’s WHEN), and an ecological catastrophe would ensue.

I fell in love with the love of my life in this city by the sea, we celebrated our engagement kayaking off the coast of Salt Spring Island (with the sea birds and the seals and the otters and the countless marine species that call the water home), and it is beside this same seal-inhabited sea that my TC and I will be married. It would break my heart if our federal and provincial governments’ short-sighted hunger for dirty oil money were to kill or irreversibly harm a beautiful coastline and ecosystem that has given me so much.

My feelings aside, if we’re talking dollars and cents, the permanent costs to the various BC industries that would be decimated by a spill (fishing, aquaculture, tourism, etc.) far outweigh the temporary and minimal benefits that allowing this pipeline (and with it, the tankers) might bring to the province. Though interested parties insist oil and pipeline companies will make sure “world-class” and “world-leading” spill-recovery technology would be in place, the fact of the matter is that oil companies are already using “world-class” technology to clean up their spills, and they aren’t doing a good job of it (three years later Enbridge is still mopping up their spill in the Kalamazoo). If the technology existed to quickly and effectively clean up oil spills, don’t you think companies would be using it, instead of subjecting themselves to a PR disaster every time a major spill occurred? The fact is, the technology to effectively remove bitumen from the ocean does not exist on this planet. So “world-leading” technology, i.e. the best the world has got, is not nearly good enough.

While I was pleased to see mention of the rally in the media (the Vancouver Sun printed a decent summary of the event), it troubles me somewhat when a gathering of thousands of concerned BC citizens is described, as it was in the Province, as “a broad collection of First Nations, environmental, and political groups” (it also bothers me that the last word was more or less given to Enbridge, who have more than enough money to buy some advertising space themselves and do so on a regular basis). While each of the rally’s speakers did fit into at least one of these ethnic, political, or activist categories, and organized groups were certainly in attendance at the rally, labeling the people assembled on Saturday simply as members of this group or that group separates them from the broader BC citizenry, when in fact, those in attendance at the rally were certainly more representative of BC-ers as a whole than any glad-handing politician or smiling corporate representative could be (I mean, take a look at the photos TC took at the event. They look like regular people to me, regular people who are committed to this issue).

Yes, many of us are members or one group or another (or several), but we are still citizens of this province and this country, not separate entities. As a people, we are against the pipeline, and against oil tanker traffic on BC’s coast. What’s so hard to understand? Thousands of people gathered to voice their dissent. People. Not foreign agents. Not radicals. Not malcontents. Moms. Dads. Kids in strollers. Students. Nature lovers (not necessarily members of an environmental group). People who care about the rights of First Nations people (not necessarily First Nations themselves or a member of a First Nations group). People who care about what is happening to democracy in this country and don’t want a pipeline shoved down their throats without their permission (not necessarily members of a political party or group). Grannies in crocheted hats and pea coats. 20-somethings with dreadlocks. Guys dressed as fish. Girls waving orca signs. Taxpayers. Voters. Kayakers on False Creek holding banners in support of the rally. Gay people. Straight people. People of many different races. Young couples in love, like TC and me. Just people. Lots and lots of people.

When City of Vancouver Councillor Andrea Reimer took to the stage to assure us that the City of Vancouver (that’s the whole city mind you, not just First Nations people or environmentalists or political activists) is against the pipeline, I have never been more proud of my city. Vancouver may have a reputation for being cold, or superficial, but we stand for more than just that-time-when-we-hosted-the-Olympics. We stand for something important.

TC and I stood together for something important that day, and thousands of people stood with us. And I don’t know what will happen and I’m very very worried but I’m very very proud too. If a pipeline gets built, no government will be able to say that only radicals were against it (I mean, I’m a secretary for goodness sakes, if I wanted to be an anarchist I’d throw a brick through a window, not attend a peaceful rally). If that pipeline breaks, no government will be able to say this is what the people asked for. If a tanker spills, no government will be able to say they didn’t know their people said no. We will hold them responsible. Hopefully we won’t have to.

A Feminist’s Case for Men’s Centres on University Campuses

/ Lauren / 1 Comment

male-sign-bathroom-bw-boarder-hiWomen’s Centres have been a regular fixture on many university campuses for a number of years. These spaces provide a safe environment for self-identified women to hang out on campus, but also to access support, referrals, and resources pertaining to sexual and reproductive health, sexual assault, domestic abuse, and mental health. Women’s Centres are usually pro-feminist, pro-choice, anti-racist, and anti-homophobic. Which is all to say that Women’s Centres on university campuses are something I wholeheartedly support. There are numerous issues that affect women and I understand completely the need and desire for women to have a safe, non-pressured space at university.

What often dismays me is the backlash that follows any institution’s forays into developing Men’s Centres. While I know that the fear of a designated “male space” being co-opted by MRA groups to push an anti-woman agenda is legitimate, I feel that the status quo is not really working either. If disenfranchised young men can’t find support on campus, where do you think they’ll end up? MRA internet forums are ready to welcome angry young men with open arms, and believe me, the discussions there are a lot more scary and stomach-churning than anything that would occur under a university administration’s purview.

The issue of whether or not Men’s Centres belong on campus is very complex and a lot of factors are at play here. I suppose when I voice my support for Men’s Centres on university campuses, I should clarify what I mean and why: I mean a safe space for self-identified men to hang out on campus, but also to access support, referrals, and resources pertaining to sexual and reproductive health, sexual assault, domestic abuse, and mental health. When I say “self-identified men” this of course includes trans men and men of any age, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. As a woman, I have always felt more comfortable discussing my emotional, mental, and sexual health with other women, and I imagine that men would feel similarly about discussing these issues with men.

Of course, it’s not as simple as this, as last year’s debate over Simon Fraser University’s proposed Men’s Centre demonstrates (I should note that while I support Men’s Centres in principle, the way in which funding for this proposed Centre was acquired and the reasoning behind it was problematic and over-simplistic to me). There are very legitimate concerns, including a long-standing history of female oppression, that would need to be addressed before a Men’s Centre should go ahead. Open and cooperative communication between Women’s and Men’s Centres on campus should be a must. The attitudes expressed in either Centre should never be adversarial or competitive towards its counterpart and the objectives of each Centre, including a code of conduct for staff and volunteers, should be clearly stated and adhered to (this would hopefully prevent a Men’s Centre from devolving into a misogynistic clubhouse).

I think debates around the rationale for Men’s Centres are important because the “target” of such a Centre would need to be identified. Is the Men’s Centre being established to blame, fight, or otherwise “push back” at women/feminism? If so, such a Men’s Centre would not be an appropriate use of university space or funds–it would basically be a university-sanctioned hate-space. But if the Men’s Centre is being established to address issues related to men’s mental and physical well-being, and to recognize the harmful ways patriarchy puts pressure on young men (by telling them that “real men” don’t cry, or providing them with only a very rigid and outdated framework for what it means to “be a man”, promoting steroid use or violence as a problem-solver, etc.), then this is absolutely the kind of initiative I would support.

I’ve heard the sound byte that “every space outside the Women’s Centre is already a Men’s Centre”, and I see where this is coming from. Historically, the world we live in was for centuries strictly a man’s world, and in the majority of private and public spaces, it still is. That being said, I also know the following:

  • Men suffer from mental health issues; many suffer from drug and alcohol addiction; many commit suicide
  • Men are victims of sexual assault (their attacker can be male or female)
  • Men are victims of domestic abuse (their abuser can be male or female)
  • Men are victims of childhood abuse (their abuser can be male or female)
  • Men have health concerns specific to their gender (prostate cancer, for example)

It has always seemed strange to me that what would be immediately (and rightfully) recognized as assault (by most people) if it happened to an unconscious woman at a party is often dismissed as “hazing” or “a joke” if it happens to a man (a couple examples involving amateur sports teams come to mind). I’m always surprised to hear from those who believe that a man can’t be raped by a woman because “something has to be cooperating” in order for the rape to occur (news flash: boner or no, if the guy is passed out and hasn’t said yes, it’s not consensual and it’s not okay). Most of these male victims are shamed into invisibility–they’re “pussies” for not being able to prevent their own assault, and “reporting” usually gets no further than hallway whispers on Monday morning or a pained admission to a spouse. I believe that creating a space for men to receive help and support sends three important and very useful messages:

  1. Rape, sexual assault, and domestic abuse do occur.
  2. No one, regardless of their gender, and regardless of the gender of their attacker, deserves to be raped, assaulted, or abused.
  3. If you are a victim of rape, assault, or abuse, you can receive help regardless of your gender. Being attacked does not make you a less worthy woman, or a less worthy man.

While it is true that women are victims of sexual assault more often than men, an official acknowledgement by men (as enshrined in the mandate of a Centre, for example) that these crimes do exist would, in my opinion, be a very good step in the fight against rape culture. And I am simply not interested in comparing wounds. How can I say that a woman’s rape is worse than a man’s (except to say that it was more likely to happen to the woman)? I can’t. And how can I say a male rape victim would be less deserving of a safe space on campus? I can’t–the patriarchy that put him in an historically-advantaged position obviously did not prevent his rape, and is not his fault.

I should note that the resources and referrals offered through Simon Fraser University’s Women’s Centre are also available to men, and that the Women’s Centre welcomes the involvement of “Male Allies”. While I applaud these initiatives, I don’t think they can be as effective as they are well-intentioned. The fact of the matter is, if you are the kind of “manly man” that cares about his masculine image to the point that it would be hard for you to ask for help or support if needed, I highly doubt you would be caught dead approaching the Women’s Centre for assistance (I’m not saying it’s a very sophisticated attitude to have, I’m just saying it’s true). I also believe that a man wishing to learn more about the effects of gender constructs and the legacy of patriarchy in his own life shouldn’t have to do so through the Women’s Centre as an Ally, he should be able to do so simply as a man who is interested in gender (yes, I know he could just go to the library but he might not know where to start). A male gender studies professor might be the perfect person to help curate such resources in a Men’s Centre on campus.

Finally, while I am not a fan of patriarchy, I don’t believe men themselves are the problem. I respect that there are some instances in which men would prefer to turn to other men for advice, resources, or support, the way I expect men to respect my preference for discussing sensitive personal matters with women. The bottom line is, I trust men to investigate and support their gender without being misogynistic, the way I expect my feminism not to be aligned with misandry. The more we push against Men’s Centres, the more MRA groups (the exact opposite of the kind of groups we want to see on campus) will use this as “evidence” of some kind of feminist conspiracy to oppress men. What I want to see is less angry, suffering, and disenfranchised men on campuses with nowhere to turn. I think Men’s Centres could help.

All I’m saying is give the guys a chance. Established correctly and run with sensitivity and a spirit of collaboration, Men’s Centres could become some of our most useful allies as we try to make university campuses a safe and supportive place for everybody, no matter their gender.

Lest We Forget to Remember

/ Lauren / Leave a comment

It’s a law of Canadian nature: once the Halloween candy has been eaten and the weather has turned the kind of ugly only November can produce, red felt poppies bloom on left-side lapels nationwide. As I check and re-check to make sure mine hasn’t fallen off, I take note of who else is wearing their poppy today, who else is being patriotic and respectful. There are a lot of us. And it’s a beautiful gesture. But it isn’t nearly enough.

55E845F5BFECA4CC69881FF42DFD6_h243_w430_m2_q80_cEYBSqidjA cursory search on Google Images assures me that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has also been sporting his poppy lately. It’s nice that he has the option to pay tribute to our veterans with this photogenic little accessory, since dropping a quarter in a Canadian Legion box and picking up a poppy on a pin is a heck of a lot cheaper than supporting our surviving veterans through the Veterans Affairs Offices. Which is probably why nine of these offices are closing and elderly veterans in need of assistance are instead being directed to call 1-800 numbers and line up at Service Canada counters. CBC media personality Rick Mercer speaks very eloquently and passionately about this issue in his latest Rick’s Rant and his piece absolutely forms a large part of the context for this post:

I sometimes wonder if it’s all my fault. Like many people my age, I’m impatient with the older generations: Get out of the way, I think, I’m coming through! Give me your jobs and your electoral clout! The future is now, and it’s all for the young! With less and less surviving veterans in our midst every year, Canadian politicians can focus on that big juicy voting demographic they all love to court: middle-class families. Out of our way, grandpa! Yeah, you lost your friends and your youth and maybe your arm on the battlefield, but we want lower cellphone fees and roaming charges! (If you don’t believe lowering cellphone fees are one of our country’s top priorities, just take a look at the 2013 Throne Speech. Yes, “Supporting Our Armed Forces” is also one of the items mentioned, but it seems that our government has equated “support” with “we’ll ask you to do a lot of things for us in the Arctic and in return we’ll give you some new equipment to do things for us with”.)

When I was about 16 or so, I heard that an acquaintance and her high school choir had been permitted to perform Edwin Starr’s “War (What Is It Good For?)” at the school’s Remembrance Day function. I remember thinking at the time that that was so damn cool. I mean, WAR. Huh. What IS it good for?! ABSOLUTELY NOTHIN’!  War is stupid, and dying just because someone told you to is stupid, and killing people just because someone told you to is stupid. My friend and I used to crank the stereo in her parents’ car and just rock out. I love that song, and for the most part, I agree with its message. War means senseless death.

And yet…people fought anyways. My parents’ fathers fought anyways. Our veterans and their families probably don’t need a hit Motown song to tell them that war is a heart breaker, friend only to the undertaker (especially during a Remembrance Day ceremony, good god). They saw it. They know. And they did what they believed they had to do. Nowadays, we may be so privileged that we can’t understand this mindset (unless, of course, we are serving in Canada’s military or have loved ones who are), but that doesn’t mean we should rub this privilege in their faces. And it certainly doesn’t mean we can’t spare the money for the little bit of bureaucratic dignity that is their right.

Before I go any further, I should disclose the following:

  1. I cannot imagine a situation in which I would ever choose to see battle, to put myself in danger of being killed, or be required to kill another person.
  2. I would never want a loved one to join the Canadian Armed Forces because I don’t want them to kill people, and I don’t want them to die.

These two things being said, I still want and expect Canada’s military to protect me and my family, and to participate in conflicts overseas in a peacekeeping capacity. It is because I feel the way I do about my own participation in any kind of armed conflict that I feel anyone who does or did join up deserves so much respect–they did something I would never want to do, something I would never want a person I love to do (it’s also why I cry like a baby every November when I see the Silver Cross Mother on CBC). Was what happened to these men and women glorious? Was it honourable? It’s not for me to say, though in my personal belief system war is neither of those things. But our veterans (and the men and women currently serving) endured it anyways.

And now some of them are old. Very old. Over the years, they have seen friends and comrades pass away, and watched as society has quietly pushed them aside to make way for the things we want right now: tax breaks and lower monthly cellphone bills. We already know Canada’s greying population is going to cost us all a lot of money going forward–magazines like Maclean’s print dire warnings about it all the time. Dying is expensive. Dying with some shreds of your dignity still intact even more so. But a human being does not stop being a human being just because they are old and no longer drive the economic engine. A citizen does not stop being a citizen because they are no longer paying income taxes. And a veteran doesn’t stop being a hero just because there are fewer and fewer people alive who remember their sacrifices.

Remembrance Day is as good a time as any to remember that “remembering” is not passive, and wearing a poppy doesn’t cut it. Truly remembering another person’s sacrifice is an active way of being. It might mean our taxes are a little higher because we have the luxury to whine about roaming fees instead of living in fear that our child, sibling, spouse, or parent might not come home. It might mean our taxes are a little higher because we don’t have to worry that our government will put us in harm’s way to be a cog in some grand scheme happening on the other side of the ocean.

This Remembrance Day, instead of just showing up and receiving salutes, I would like our Prime Minister to encourage Canadians to actively remember the sacrifices of our veterans, and to trust that we want our veterans to spend their last years with the dignity they deserve, whatever the cost. You can’t put a price on human life, and we’ve already asked so many people to give up theirs.