Give & Live.

     One of the nicest people I know recently emailed me with a question. She had a paper to write and the topic was "living simply so that others may simply live". She wanted to know if I had anything to contribute. You might notice that in almost all of my posts you can find this sentence: "I had never considered/thought about this before." Well, here we go again. I had never thought about this before. The reason I'm writing this post is not to push my ideas down your throat or to force something upon you that you disagree with; I do that enough. This is simply for the sake of pondering what could be.
     This wonderful person gave me the example of giving up coffee so that you could donate the money you usually use to buy it. What a good idea! Many people deem coffee as a necessity, but there's other ways to have more energy. Something as simple as giving up coffee to be able to give your money, or even donating your own coffee to the food bank, could make someone else's life a little bit easier.
     I had to spend a few minutes trying to figure out what to say to her. Living simply so that others may simply live. Hmmmm. And then it hit me! Well, they hit me. Two things that fit into this category quite nicely, if I do say so myself: 1. Vegetarianism and 2. WWOOFing.
     Let's start with numero uno. This reason for vegetarianism might seem a little juvenile to those more experienced in the field, but I think it deserves just as much credit as any other reason. Giving up meat is easy. Yep, I said it. Last November I decided to stop eating meat one day and I did. Completely. It's really not as hard as it seems. If you are reading this and considering vegetarianism, I believe in you! So, let's say you give up meat. On average, you alone will be saving the lives of about 5,000 animals. That's a number averaged from a few websites, but still! Can you believe that? How incredible would it be if we could all save that many lives? So, only eating vegetables will let animals live. That's pretty cool, I think.
     And WWOOFing! For those of you who aren't familiar, WWOOF stands for World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms. The deal is, you are a volunteer. You travel to a farm (which can be anywhere in the whole world, by the way), you help them and they give you food and a place to stay. My best friend is in Belgium right now and he recently WWOOFed. The farm he stayed at was permaculture oriented. I don't know too many details about the farm and I don't want to give any false information, but from what I gathered, the conditions were pretty basic. There was no running water and no heating whatsoever. But! Because my fantastic friend went and stayed with these people for a few weeks, he was able to help them insulate their roof for the winter. So, he gives up showers and toilets and warmth, but these people get to be a little bit warmer when the snow starts to fall. Isn't that nice?
     Again, this isn't meant to force you into caffeine withdrawals, vegetarianism or WWOOFing (if it does, though, I would not complain), it's simply to make you think a little more. What could you give up to make someone else's life better? And how much better would the world be as a whole if everyone thought about this topic for five minutes?

La Fleur.

     This blog post is not meant to be controversial. Well, it won't be controversial. For the first time in the history of my blog, I am going to write about something NICE. Something I find refreshing and wonderful. Take note, kids.
     This last Monday, I started a new job at an independent flower shop. My boss worked for four years in Fort McMurray so he could save up enough money to start the business and get married. Cute, right? He is one of the nicest, most accepting people I've ever met. He constantly says "thank you" whenever I do any kind of job even though I'm getting paid for it, which is really nice. It makes me feel appreciated. And he's cheery! He's just plain ol' kind and joyous. But he's not why I'm writing this post.
     Whilst cutting the ends off of some very pretty roses, I got to thinking about the flower industry, which is something I'd never really thought about before. Most of our flowers come from South America or Europe, which sucks because it's so far, and they probably use tons of pesticides, but I digress. After I passed over the ususal "why this sucks" tangent of my thought process, I started to really think about the use of the flower industry and I came to the realization that the only reason it exists is for the sole purpose of celebration. We, at the store, do arrangements for weddings, birthdays, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Valentine's Day, and "just because". Flowers make people feel awesome. There's no way that something so natural and beautiful wouldn't make people feel special or just plain happy. What's greater than an industry based on the happiness of people and the celebration of love and life?
     Needless to say, I love my job. I love that I am a part of something that makes people feel good. I love knowing that when I wake up in the morning, I will be making someone's life more enjoyable, even if it is in a really small way.

My Views on Feminism Part 3

     So! Today as I was reading the Edmonton Sun (big mistake), I stumbled upon something that caused me some pretty serious inner conflict. About half way through the paper, there was an article that took up the whole entire page called "Sex Trade Pioneers". This article was obviously about pioneers and the sex trade. And I'd like to explain to you why it made me feel sort of amazed and sort of like I wanted to hit myself in the face.
     First of all, here is a little overview. The article was about a U of A student who did an exhibit on pioneer women and the sex trade. The article, again, took up the whole page, and explained to the reader the importance of the sex trade in the 1800s. It gave examples of women who owned brothels, took pornographic images, defied the RCMP, got arrested and sometimes ended up killing police officers. It also explained how when Edmonton's last brothel was shut down in the 1880s, many people deemed Edmonton to be uninhabitable. At the very end of the article, the journalist states that the student created this exhibit so that people would rethink the dehumanization of sex trade workers today.
     I'd like to tell you what I liked about this article. It was about women.
     Now, I'd like to tell you what I didn't like about this article. EVERYTHING ELSE. To start with, the article is about the freaking sex trade. Being a feminist, and an angry one, I cannot tolerate any sort of objectification of women at any time for any reason. There are definitely more opportunities for jobs today than there were in the 1880s, which is why the sex trade should be crumbling, but back then, do you really think there were many options? These women in the article who were killing police officers to save their brothels were most likely running a brothel so they could stay alive. I don't care if you own a gas station or a museum, if someone comes in and tries to take away from you what you've created, it's obvious that you will defend what is rightfully yours. Without being able to go to school or vote or make any type of decision without a husband, these women were left to do the "only thing  they're good for anyway": sex. I'm absolutely sure that they did not purposely become vigilantes. They were just trying to make a living and this is what happened. Now, I'm sure that this is what the U of A student was trying to get across. That these women were people trying to make a living and that's why they deserve some respect. I'm sure she was trying to show the strength of these women. I believe that they were strong. But, for goodness sakes, can we talk about strong women that weren't being used as objects for the pleasure of men? Where are the first wave feminists in this exhibit? If we're trying to get people to stop dehumanizing sex trade workers, maybe we should try to get them to stop dehumanizing women first.
     As I mentioned, there were women in the 1880s that were beginning the first wave of feminism. Lucy Stone was the first woman in 1884 to change her wedding vows and get rid of the word "obey". There were so many women fighting for their equality. WHY ISN'T THIS ARTICLE ABOUT  THEM? Where is Lucy Stone in the Edmonton Sun? Sadly, Lucy Stone isn't there because equality doesn't sell. Sex sells. Sex sells so well, in fact, that there was a whole page devoted to these poor women of the sex trade. Do you know how disappointing it is that this is the first article I've ever read in the Edmonton Sun about a group of women? I guess the only way that we can get in the paper at all is if we're objects. "Oh, Lucy Stone wasn't topless when she changed her marriage vows? Sorry, we can't write about that." I know for a fact that if this probably very intelligent university student did an exhibit on suffrage instead, it wouldn't have taken up half a page. Frankly, I'm disgusted.
     If we continue to focus on our sexuality being the only thing we're good for, we will not go anywhere. We are now at a point where we, as women, can freely choose to exercise our sexuality or not, but these women were not there yet! Not even close! They had to sell their bodies and other womens' bodies to men to make a living without a husband. Why is this being celebrated?  Women have had to put up with objectification since the 1800s, I now know, and they definitely had to put up with it before then too. We are still putting up with it every single day. From the time we're old enough to understand sentences, our mothers have been telling us to never go anywhere alone, always bring a trusted (male) friend just in case, never go anywhere in the dark, etc. We are familiar with objectification. Every single girl has been dealing with it her whole life. Why are we still treating it like it's okay? Why are we glorifying the objectification of the past for everyone to see? Yes. It happened, we understand that. Let's move on and make things better.

To Greenpeace or Not to Greenpeace? That is the Question.

     I wanted to write about this a while ago, but it sort of slipped my mind. Here it is now, though!
     I was chatting with a very smart person one day about Greenpeace. If you read this, smart person, I know this may not be your opinion now but I found it really interesting at the time so I'd like to offer it up to my peeps as something to think about. I hope that's okay!
     This very smart person said to me that he was "done with Greenpeace". Now, I've wanted to work for Greenpeace since I was eight, so I have to say, I was a little taken aback by this comment. When I asked him why, he said that because of things like Whale Wars and Seal Wars and their constant attack on North American oil, they're missing out on other opportunites to be activists. He said that because they draw so much attention to North American oil, they aren't at all paying attention to Middle Eastern oil. My smart friend thought that Greenpeace was too worried about being glamorous and not worried enough about being engaged in everything they could be.
     I had never considered this point of view before and found it completely fascinating, to be honest with you. I never really looked past the green, peaceful face of Greenpeace. Maybe he was right. Maybe they weren't doing as much as they should be doing. And it got me to thinking about what they could be doing instead and this is what I came up with:
     Greenpeace could be a worldwide social agitator. They could be on top of every wrong-doing across the globe: every oil spill, every Occupy protest, every clear cut, every styrofoam cup thrown out a window, etc. And this would be fantastic! It would be incredibly helpful in the fight for our right to live on a healthy, happy planet.
     Greenpeace doesn't have enough people for this. Sadly, there are not enough people who care and who are willing to be at every single tossing-of-a-cigarette-butt incident. But, the people at Greenpeace are doing what they can with the resources that they have. AND THEY ARE DOING SOMETHING.
     Even though I see my smart friend's point, here is why I am still on the Greenpeace train:
1. Without TV shows like Whale Wars and Seal Wars, thousands of people wouldn't even have known that things like that were taking place.
2. I know that everything with a camera seems like a hoax, but personally, I would not be on a ship on the coast of Antarctica saving whales' asses if I didn't care about it with all of my heart and soul. These people are hardcore.
3. Greenpeace is confronting AN oil crisis. Not all oil crises, but they are making people aware of part of the industry that will ultimately be our demise and I think that's a pretty big dealio.
4. Greenpeace is a not-for-profit organization. My strong, womanly instincts tell me that this cannot be a bad thing.
5. Greenpeace is the most well-known, most fricking inspiring activist group ever. If you are not inspired by a group of people who may live in poverty on purpose just for the sake of helping YOU live freely on your Earth, I don't know what to say.
6. Greenpeace may not be protesting and boycotting everything, but    THEY ARE DOING SOMETHING. I cannot say that enough. I can't help but think that the fact that they are out there in the public eye doing something so amazing and helpful makes others want to be helpful too. Maybe not to the same degree of crazy, but maybe they'll stop eating meat. Maybe they'll start riding their bike to school. Maybe they'll stop going to zoos.
     We, as a whole, need organizations like Greenpeace to remind us of what's important.
   

Is Being Normal Okay?

     I was talking to a good friend a few days ago about social norms. It's funny how simple everything seems until you question or ponder why it is so socially acceptable to do certain things in the first place. I brought up the idea of having one bathroom for both genders in every public setting. If you can imagine this (it IS a little odd, I'll admit), you might feel that if this were socially acceptable since the time you were born, you might not be as scared of, or as unfamiliar with, the other gender as you are now. You may feel that this situation might be unsafe, but remember, everyone would be completely accustomed to it. I can't help but feel that this might encourage a certain type of equality and brotherhood. I know personally that I would be less scared of one on one confrontations with men (I should not be scared of men, but that's a conversation for another day).
     I also brought up the idea of raising children based on gender. It seems completely normal to most parents that if they have a son, he should wear pants and play with cars and like the color blue. But who's to say that this is what the child wants? I recently listened to a radio show on gender stereotyping in young children and how harmful it can be to them in the future, especially if they turn out to be homosexual or transgender. On the show, a couple was interviewed because of the way they chose to raise their children. They have a son who chooses to wear pink, chooses to wear dresses and chooses to keep his hair fairly long. Their son identifies himself as a boy, but chooses to present himself as more "girly", some might say. The parents are completely accepting of this young boy. Can you imagine how easily confidence would come if you grew up knowing exactly who you were, you didn't have to deal with any external pressures and your parents supported this?
     When things as normal as these are questioned, we see that maybe they shouldn't be so normal at all.
     After talking with my friend, I began to think more about social norms and one popped into my head that I've thought about a few times before: the concept of having pets. I know most people who have pets are self-proclaimed "animal lovers" and would do anything for their pet, but is the idea of owning another living thing natural? I've never known of another species that takes an infant animal away from its family and raises it according to the rules of the owner species. My family has two dogs, a cat and my best friend and I share three fish. I love all of these animals very dearly and I feel that we give them a good life. BUT, there's a part of me that feels I'm doing something wrong. Every "animal lover" has had to deal with their beloved pet shitting on the carpet. This animal has no idea that they did something wrong. If they were free to be an animal instead of a pet, they could relieve themselves wherever they wanted. But no, they belong to this animal lover and although the pet is completely clueless as to why a carpet even matters, they are punished. They are punished by their owner based on human standards. Yeah, if a person pooped on my carpet, they should know that's wrong. But a dog? I'm sorry, but there's just something about having that type of control over another living species that seems corrupt. As humans, the only species who can think and question (so far), I feel we have a responsibility to look after our more vulnerable fellow animals and protect them from harm, not willingly inflict it.
     I don't plan on having children, but now that I realize gender stereotyping in children is harmful, I'll be sure to let them be who they are meant to be if they ever happen to grace me with their presence. I'm keeping my fish, but I'm aware that now I might not have made the right decision. I know that after my little marine buddies pass, I won't be acquiring another pet. I hope this caused you to think about your own actions and maybe to question some social norms that shouldn't be so norm...al.