Heart to Heart, Amirite?

  Reader discretion is advised.  

     First off, fuck apartment hunting and fuck the university bookstore. I have never been so stressed out in my life. This stress not only stems from having a lot less money than I need to have, but also comes from this overwhelming feeling of frustration due to just not knowing how things are going to turn out. Yeah, I have to pay a lot for text books, but my life would be triple less stressful (ignore my grammar choices - they are faulty) if I EVEN KNEW WHICH BOOKS I NEEDED. Shitsakes.
     Secondly, I recently discovered that I suffer from something called "tryphobia" which means I have a terrible fear of holes in things. Shout out to Liz for helping me figure that one out and being my comrade! Nasty stuff.
     Thirdly, I'd like to talk about political leadership. I hope it isn't hard for people to take me seriously after I talk about such trivial things in my introductions. If it is, whoops.
     Recently, I made a Facebook status regarding environmental issues in Canada. Not even necessarily environmental issues, but Obama's views on our response to environmental crisis. I know that people have different views on how damaged the environment is and whether or not it is actually something that needs to be discussed, but that's not what I'm talking about here either. The article discussing this stuff was in the Edmonton Sun, which I hate with a fiery passion that consumes every muscle tissue in my deepest heart of hearts. I could almost probably definitely write a whole damn blog post on how much I despise the Edmonton Sun, but I digress. The article was written about a speech that Obama gave discussing Canada's response to it's environmental impact. Obama briefly discussed the possibility of the US cutting off trade with Canada until Canada cleans up it's act. This is a completely reasonable thing to say on Obama's part. He would have said the same thing to any other country that pumped out as many million tons of toxins as we do. The dude knows that the United States isn't doing much better, but he also knows that we produce a lot more toxic emissions than the US does and he recognizes that this makes us responsible for the outcome of these actions. I think Obama's dope, and I definitely agree with him. The article in the Sun was written in a really rude way. Basically, they were telling us, as Canadians, to be angry with Obama. "Obama says we don't know how to take care of our country? Man, we might even lose trading rights with the United States? We should definitely ignore every point this guy makes and just turn the whole country against him, because THAT will secure our trading rights. We're brilliant! Who needs to negotiate?" Guys. Whhaaaaaaaat makes sense about that? Sure, we, as countries, probably disagree on this and sure, it's okay to get a little bit offended when others criticize our actions, but the least we can do is listen and try to compromise, right? Fighting with our only real ally is probably the worst idea ever, so, logic says, WE SHOULD PROBABLY NOT DO THAT.
     After reading this article, a few other things came to my attention. Most people are aware of the detainment of openly homosexual citizens in Russia recently, yes? What is the deal with that? I'm not really educated on the subject (quick little side note: I'm not sure if this is irresponsible of me or whatever, but I don't usually use citations or anything like that because a) my blog posts are mostly all opinion-based and b) I write because I have thoughts about things and I like to write, not to educate people on current events. Whenever I choose to write about something, I have a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about and I just go with that. I hope that doesn't offend people.), but I know enough to think that this is crazy. It also has recently come to my attention that Costa Rica has no standing military, and I think that's great, so I'm looking at two ends of the spectrum here. Here's what I'm trying to get at with this whole spiel, basically: where is the communication between political leaders and why is it so damn hard for people to listen to each other? I know that there's the G8 and G20 and people have meetings all the time, but I just can't understand why these things don't help anyone. Oh, sorry, correction: why these things don't help anything besides the economy. Conversation and interaction between human beings may be the single most powerful form of action there is, so where are the results? Why do we, as a species, always feel the need to immediately cause violence to people who offend us? If you think about it in more minimal terms, it seems really, really silly. For example, if you own a book store and a customer approaches you and says, "This book is stupid and I despise this cover art" and then lights the book on fire in your face, welcome to the American way, you know? I don't understand why violence is always the more appropriate and accepted solution when it is the most inappropriate solution. Why can't Laura Chinchilla and Dmitry Medvedev talk? They might have in the past, I'm not sure, but it wouldn't hurt to try again. A lot of people will read that and think, "But they don't have the same opinion on things! That won't do any good!" That doesn't matter - the least they can do is share some thoughts. I recently came to a conclusion: the definition of an argument is not necessarily persuasion. The reason that people argue is to make the other person think about their point of view - persuasion, if it occurs, is simply the icing on the cake. Agreeing or disagreeing is not the point; the point is thinking about the topic. I could argue for hours with a person who is pro-life about why I'm pro-choice, but I'm not trying to convince them that they're wrong, I just want them to think about it. Arguments are merely suggestions.
     Basically, the point I'm trying to get at here is that things never have to be so "us vs. them". Especially in terms of political leadership. All that leads to is hate, frustration, and war. The more calm we are with our leadership tactics, the safer everything will be for everyone, really. Talking isn't difficult.
     I hope everyone reading this has nice apartments and textbooks for dayzzz. Thanks!

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.