I was not good at home ec. I hated it. I would have failed it had I not smuggled my sewing home to my mom to do so I was able to scrape up a C. My peers were not that much better. OUr two sewing projects took us so long that they ended up dominating the enter semester-long course and we didn't even have time to start the cooking unit. It didn't mattter. The next year my independent girls' school cancelled the program all together and I never had to take home ec again. My school cancelled the class because they wanted us to focus on more "educational" classes. Our bother school, however, kept their home ec class and still have it to this day. It is mandatory. Other boys' schools in my city have popular clubs that teach "life lessons (eg, how to make scrambled eggs and hem your pant legs). The message to boys is clear: one day you will have to take care of yourself. You CANNOT just rely on other people. The messsage to girls is: progress means relying on others to feed and clothe yourself.
Now, at the age of 21, I cannot sew. I can cook only because I would starve while living on my own at university without that ability, but it took me a long time to get there. When I moved out on my own at 19, I didn't even know how to boil an egg. Today, my cooking is a bit more advanced. Indeed, I have boiled eggs every day! I can also make spaghetti, chicken, brownies, oatmeal chocolate chip cookies, and anything that can be prepared using a George Foreman grill. I can sort of (not well) feed myself, but if a button were to fall off my shirt, I'd be screwed.
I'm part of a new generation of women who were told not to learn how to cook or clean or sew (or do anything useful, for that matter), because we'd all be CEO's, important UN officials and fashion magazine editors running the world. Why did we need to know how to take care of ourselves? NO, all we needed to know was how to take care of the 1st quarter profits of a Fortune 500 company or solve an ethnic dispute involving oil in some Middle Eastern country.
Meanwhile, my male counterparts seem to be ever more domestic. I have never dated a guy who was not a better cook than I am. Most men I have dated also own sewing kits and know how to use them should they need to patch or reattach something. I don't even know where one would go to BUY a sewing kit. These men have learned how to do the traditionally domestic things necessary to sustain one's life because their mothers and schools taught them. Why? Because I guess they thought their domestically incompetent but financially gifted CEO wives wouldn't have time to do the traditionally girlie things; however, this proficiency in the kitchen does not render these men useless in traditionally masculine areas. Their dads are still teaching them to DIY and stuff like that, while I have no clue how to put my IKEA furniture together. These are supermen capable of doing anything necessary to survive. If they were lost on a desert island, they could hunt for the food, cook it and build you a shelter to eat it in. If I were lost on a desert island, I'd have to hope my fellow cast-aways thought I was cute and kept me around because of that, because my knowledge of post-modern feminist theory and current events wouldn't make up for the fact that I couldn't boil the boar we'd just taken down.
While women are showing up at universities in greater and greater numbers, young men are acquiring far more useful skills than sociology degrees.; they are learning how to take care of themselves. Just walking around the Queen's Student ghetto, it is evident that the stereotype of "messy" boys' houses and "clean and pretty girls' houses that smell of baked goods" are no longer true. The boys I know care far more about keeping their rooms tidy, making sure they're nicely decorated, and cutting up at least three vegetables to go into the salad, than I do. This does not mean, however, that they don't like to go out to a keg party after enjoying their salads to play beer pong and refuse to drink cocktails because they're too "girlie." There are still loads of gender stereotypes to be found on my university campus, but they no longer cripple men's abilities to develop basic survivor skills. Unfortunately, "empowering girls" means robbing them of the ability to take care of themselves. There is no reason I can't be top of my class and aspire to a great career AS WELL AS knowing how to cook and sew. Really, would an extra semester of home ec or my mom making me cook with her a couple of nights a week crippled my ability to earn good grades or taken too much time away from learning how to take over the world? Would it have told me all I was supposed to do with my life was commit myself to domestic drudgery while my husband relaxed and drank a martini after work? No! No! No!
Our society is perfectly capable of developing a way to teach girls house-keeping without making them think it is their only purpose in life. After all, if the boys develop a monopoly on cooking skills, soon they'll be able to hold hot chicken dinners for ransome to get their jobs as CEO's back from the generation of girls trying to usurp them. Girls are multi-talented. We can cook AND arrange corporate-takeovers.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
What I Want...
I have dreams about having babies. I have dreams about nannying for babies. I have dreams about kidnapping babies. Something I never thought would happen at 21 is happening - I can hear the deafening tick tock of my biological clock.
You must understand that I don't want to HAVE a baby. Not now. I have no permanent job. I'm still in school. I have no life partner. I have no real home besides rented student digs I share with other 20-somethings who would resent their pre-drinks and study sessions being interrupted by an unwed mother's baby's cries. I can't have a baby. If I got pregnant today, I surely WOULDN'T have the baby, but I want to hold a baby in my arms. I want to caress a chubby, soft, gorgeously flawed cheek. I want to have a baby; I just don't want to HAVE a baby, and how does one reconcile that?
I have recently started having baby themes in my dreams. I hold a baby in my arms (it doesn't have to be mine) and I suddenly can't let it go. People try to take it away from me, and in response, I sob and I run away. I do anything to keep holding the little blob of life in my arms. I cling to it so fiercely it scares me, and when I wake up and realize there's no baby (I'm holding the air), I feel like crying for hours after it is revealed the baby I loved so dearly and wanted to die for was only a dream.
I walk around the streets, and I hate mothers with babies. I see them and resent them. They make me sad. I want one so badly and I can't have one right now and who says I'll ever be able to? Who says the time will ever be right? Who says a baby will ever be mine? But these lucky women with their infants in snugglies or toddlers in $20 grocery store strollers have had the joy of holding a baby in their arms. They needn't doubt whether they'll ever have a baby in their lives, and I hate them for their joy and my uncertainty, my absolute, crippling insecurity. What if I never find a partner who wants me and a child? What if I can't conceive and adoption fails? What if, as a single woman, I find it too hard to adopt and can't reconcile myself to the mysery sperm at donar clinics? What if, what if? What if I never have a baby to love, is what it all comes down to....
I am not really that great with kids. They don't all automatically love me, and I could never have the patience to be a teacher, dealing with 30 shouting children at a time. And yet, I need to nurture. I need something to protect. I wonder if this need makes my desire for children selfish, and whether that means I am disqualified from ever being a truly good mother and should not attempt to have children? I fear my reasons for wanting children as much as I fear the possibility that I will never have them. I fear screwing up new life and I fear the idea that I may never participate in shaping it. I fear so much, and yet, there are so many people in this world. I wonder, must every parent have the same fears? Or is parenting meant to be done on instinct. Is over-analysing one's motivation ill-advised? Although, the irony is, no one over-analyses more than the girl who wonders if she's over-analysing something.
For the sake of simplicity, I'll say what I need to say because I need to let myself hear it: I want children. Plain and simple. That's me. I hope I'm worthy of wanting somethign so big and special.
You must understand that I don't want to HAVE a baby. Not now. I have no permanent job. I'm still in school. I have no life partner. I have no real home besides rented student digs I share with other 20-somethings who would resent their pre-drinks and study sessions being interrupted by an unwed mother's baby's cries. I can't have a baby. If I got pregnant today, I surely WOULDN'T have the baby, but I want to hold a baby in my arms. I want to caress a chubby, soft, gorgeously flawed cheek. I want to have a baby; I just don't want to HAVE a baby, and how does one reconcile that?
I have recently started having baby themes in my dreams. I hold a baby in my arms (it doesn't have to be mine) and I suddenly can't let it go. People try to take it away from me, and in response, I sob and I run away. I do anything to keep holding the little blob of life in my arms. I cling to it so fiercely it scares me, and when I wake up and realize there's no baby (I'm holding the air), I feel like crying for hours after it is revealed the baby I loved so dearly and wanted to die for was only a dream.
I walk around the streets, and I hate mothers with babies. I see them and resent them. They make me sad. I want one so badly and I can't have one right now and who says I'll ever be able to? Who says the time will ever be right? Who says a baby will ever be mine? But these lucky women with their infants in snugglies or toddlers in $20 grocery store strollers have had the joy of holding a baby in their arms. They needn't doubt whether they'll ever have a baby in their lives, and I hate them for their joy and my uncertainty, my absolute, crippling insecurity. What if I never find a partner who wants me and a child? What if I can't conceive and adoption fails? What if, as a single woman, I find it too hard to adopt and can't reconcile myself to the mysery sperm at donar clinics? What if, what if? What if I never have a baby to love, is what it all comes down to....
I am not really that great with kids. They don't all automatically love me, and I could never have the patience to be a teacher, dealing with 30 shouting children at a time. And yet, I need to nurture. I need something to protect. I wonder if this need makes my desire for children selfish, and whether that means I am disqualified from ever being a truly good mother and should not attempt to have children? I fear my reasons for wanting children as much as I fear the possibility that I will never have them. I fear screwing up new life and I fear the idea that I may never participate in shaping it. I fear so much, and yet, there are so many people in this world. I wonder, must every parent have the same fears? Or is parenting meant to be done on instinct. Is over-analysing one's motivation ill-advised? Although, the irony is, no one over-analyses more than the girl who wonders if she's over-analysing something.
For the sake of simplicity, I'll say what I need to say because I need to let myself hear it: I want children. Plain and simple. That's me. I hope I'm worthy of wanting somethign so big and special.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
In defense of the new Femme Fatale
What do we really want our daughters to be? This is an important question. The war between Team Jolie and Team Anistan is as violent as ever, more than two years after Brad Pitt chose to spend his life as Jolie's partner and father to her children. He made that personal choice. Only someone in a marriage can walk out on a marriage, and yet Angelina is still villified on blogs and in magazine polls. Yes, if one listens to the readers of US weekly, Jen is the better friend and person. THe girl we'd rather hang out with, but why? This is the question I keep asking myself. Why don't we want our daughters to be like Angelina over Aniston?
What on earth makes Jennifer Aniston anything other than totally useless? Why is she a role-model and icon, and why can why sexual decision on the part of Angelina (the one she made regarding excepting the love of a man who'd already left his wife) does that negate Angelina's many talents and contributtions to the world? Angelina has won an oscar. She has won more than one Golden Globe. She is very talented. Aniston is famous for being on a citcom where the show's greatest asset was its hilarious, easily delivered writing, not its actors. In the talent department, Angelina wins. She's in movies that matter about women who make us think. Aniston is in Rob Reiner flops like Rumour Has It.
Angelina gives one third of her multi-million dollar salary to charity each year. Does Aniston give? Well, if she does at all, not this much. Angelina donates countless hours of her time to her work as a UN good will ambassador and discussing international law in interviews. Does Aniston even know what international law is? If so, she seems to prefer talking about herself in interviews rather than the plight of developing nations.
Finally, Angelina is a good and devoted mother. What more could we want for our daughters than for them to be good to their daughters, as well?
In everything we should value in a woman - talent, generosity, maternal aptitude - Angelina wins. So why do we hate her? Is it because she's beautiful? Perhaps. Is it because we secretly blame the other woman every time when she's not the moral agent? Yes. It's because when men are jerks and leave us, walking out on all we have, we don't want to believe we devoted our lives to assholes or that they've just callously fallen out of love with us, we want to believe the other woman is a witch who cast a spell and tricked him. We want to blame her to save ourselves from the ugly truth. Angelina has come to represent the other woman in our sexist society, where all the good one does is erased the moment one sleeps with someone society arbitrarily decides one shouldn't touch. Our society is so sexist. Brad Pitt left Jennifer because he fell in love with a spectacular woman. HOw is that Angelina's fault? I will never understand.
What on earth makes Jennifer Aniston anything other than totally useless? Why is she a role-model and icon, and why can why sexual decision on the part of Angelina (the one she made regarding excepting the love of a man who'd already left his wife) does that negate Angelina's many talents and contributtions to the world? Angelina has won an oscar. She has won more than one Golden Globe. She is very talented. Aniston is famous for being on a citcom where the show's greatest asset was its hilarious, easily delivered writing, not its actors. In the talent department, Angelina wins. She's in movies that matter about women who make us think. Aniston is in Rob Reiner flops like Rumour Has It.
Angelina gives one third of her multi-million dollar salary to charity each year. Does Aniston give? Well, if she does at all, not this much. Angelina donates countless hours of her time to her work as a UN good will ambassador and discussing international law in interviews. Does Aniston even know what international law is? If so, she seems to prefer talking about herself in interviews rather than the plight of developing nations.
Finally, Angelina is a good and devoted mother. What more could we want for our daughters than for them to be good to their daughters, as well?
In everything we should value in a woman - talent, generosity, maternal aptitude - Angelina wins. So why do we hate her? Is it because she's beautiful? Perhaps. Is it because we secretly blame the other woman every time when she's not the moral agent? Yes. It's because when men are jerks and leave us, walking out on all we have, we don't want to believe we devoted our lives to assholes or that they've just callously fallen out of love with us, we want to believe the other woman is a witch who cast a spell and tricked him. We want to blame her to save ourselves from the ugly truth. Angelina has come to represent the other woman in our sexist society, where all the good one does is erased the moment one sleeps with someone society arbitrarily decides one shouldn't touch. Our society is so sexist. Brad Pitt left Jennifer because he fell in love with a spectacular woman. HOw is that Angelina's fault? I will never understand.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Conversation Starters
Summer is full of socializing and parties. Some times you know lots of people at parties, and sometimes you don't, so it's important to have a repertoire of sassy, sexy, witty questions and comments to whip out at a moment's notice just in case the conversation goes dry. After all, there is nothing more awkward than an awkward silence.
1. How much money would it take for your to prostitute yourself? Come on, everyone has a prostitution price. It might take up to a billion dollars, but everyone would do it! Even if you don't want the money for yourself, if someone gave you a billion dollars, think how you could help OTHER people. My minimum prositution price would be $250,000 for one night. I'm fairly confident no one will ever offer me this, as there are fairly hot and classy pros who'll do it for $400, but still, if offered, I'd take it.
2. If you had to give up one, which would you give up, food or sex? It's fun to watch people mull this over. Women usually have a pretty decided answer pretty quickly, but most men have a huge amount of difficulty deciding. Sometimes, they even try to trick you by asking, "If I give up sex for food, can I still masturbate?" My answer is usually no, because allowing that caveat would make their decision just too easy.
3. Would you rather have 5 kids or none at all? It's just interesting to watch people navigate these two extremes.
4. Which movie do you like better, Wedding Crashers or the 40 Year Old Virgin? This is a VERY controversial question. There are two firmly divided camps that WILL fight each other and might get violent, so ask this question before everyone gets drunk and aggressive.
5. Do you think Lindsay Lohan's breasts are real? Watch out, this debate can last for hours! I mean, are they too perky? Do they really jiggle the way real boobs do? I can't even decide. If they're real, though, they are some of the best breasts ever.
Well, these are my five classics. I use them often, and they aren't copy-written or anything, so other people are free to use them too!
1. How much money would it take for your to prostitute yourself? Come on, everyone has a prostitution price. It might take up to a billion dollars, but everyone would do it! Even if you don't want the money for yourself, if someone gave you a billion dollars, think how you could help OTHER people. My minimum prositution price would be $250,000 for one night. I'm fairly confident no one will ever offer me this, as there are fairly hot and classy pros who'll do it for $400, but still, if offered, I'd take it.
2. If you had to give up one, which would you give up, food or sex? It's fun to watch people mull this over. Women usually have a pretty decided answer pretty quickly, but most men have a huge amount of difficulty deciding. Sometimes, they even try to trick you by asking, "If I give up sex for food, can I still masturbate?" My answer is usually no, because allowing that caveat would make their decision just too easy.
3. Would you rather have 5 kids or none at all? It's just interesting to watch people navigate these two extremes.
4. Which movie do you like better, Wedding Crashers or the 40 Year Old Virgin? This is a VERY controversial question. There are two firmly divided camps that WILL fight each other and might get violent, so ask this question before everyone gets drunk and aggressive.
5. Do you think Lindsay Lohan's breasts are real? Watch out, this debate can last for hours! I mean, are they too perky? Do they really jiggle the way real boobs do? I can't even decide. If they're real, though, they are some of the best breasts ever.
Well, these are my five classics. I use them often, and they aren't copy-written or anything, so other people are free to use them too!
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Why do the Rich and Famous Drink and drive?
Why do celebrities drink and drive? They don't do their own laundry. They don't cook their own food. They don't pick out their own clothes. They don't negotiate their own contracts and they certainly don't raise their own children. So, why, why, when they don't do even the most basic things for themselves while sober, do celebrities get drunk or high and then decide it would be a grand old idea to drive THEMSELVES home.
Yes, why DO they do drink or do coke and drive? Why do they drive with suspended licenses? After all, they can afford to hire someone else to drive! Call a cab, or if you don't like that, rent a limo when you go to the clubs (hey, Paris gets paid $300,000 every time she just shows up at a club, so she can spring the couple hundred for a limo rental for the night), or just force your assistant to go with you and make her your designated driver in return for giving her some of the free goodies Versace and Marc Jacobs sent you this week. I mean, what is so great about driving drunk that you WANT to do it repeatedly, even when it almost ruined your career the first time you did it (Calling Lindsay Lohan).
My friends and I are Lindsay's age. We are not movie stars and do not make movie star salaries, but we somehow manage to budget for cabs home when drunk or find a sober friend to drive us. Yes, it's because we don't want to hurt anyone by doing something as dangerous as driving while intoxicated, but it's also a certain amount of selfish common sense that motivates us too: we don't want to go to jail! Movie stars can get sent to jail too. Sean Penn went, and so did Paris. You'd think they'd get the message and just stop doing it, because unlike the luxury rehab facilities these starlets can afford, jail does not let you use your cell phone or wear designer clothes or get facials whenever you feel like that. If you're so addicted that you can't think straight and can't stop yourself from driving drunk, go to rehab! Celebrity rehab actually looks like fun, if you don't count the withdrawal (from drugs, alcohol AND publicity).
Addiction is a terrible illness. When your parents are classless and whore you out from the age of ten like Lindsay's, you do't have much of a chance of escaping drugs when your crazy mom allows you to move to LA by yourself at 17. But the main problem for her is, while people might be forgiving, the insurance industry isn't. Try getting insurance for a movie starring a girl who goes to rehab once a month. It doesn't matter if you believe in her or feel sorry for her, as a Hollywood producer dealing with OTHER people's money, Lindsay's a risk you just can't take. Maybe she'll eventually become like Drew Berrymore - get her crazy mother out of her life, clean herself up, start producing her own projects and finally make a comeback after a few years of laying low. Maybe...
Yes, why DO they do drink or do coke and drive? Why do they drive with suspended licenses? After all, they can afford to hire someone else to drive! Call a cab, or if you don't like that, rent a limo when you go to the clubs (hey, Paris gets paid $300,000 every time she just shows up at a club, so she can spring the couple hundred for a limo rental for the night), or just force your assistant to go with you and make her your designated driver in return for giving her some of the free goodies Versace and Marc Jacobs sent you this week. I mean, what is so great about driving drunk that you WANT to do it repeatedly, even when it almost ruined your career the first time you did it (Calling Lindsay Lohan).
My friends and I are Lindsay's age. We are not movie stars and do not make movie star salaries, but we somehow manage to budget for cabs home when drunk or find a sober friend to drive us. Yes, it's because we don't want to hurt anyone by doing something as dangerous as driving while intoxicated, but it's also a certain amount of selfish common sense that motivates us too: we don't want to go to jail! Movie stars can get sent to jail too. Sean Penn went, and so did Paris. You'd think they'd get the message and just stop doing it, because unlike the luxury rehab facilities these starlets can afford, jail does not let you use your cell phone or wear designer clothes or get facials whenever you feel like that. If you're so addicted that you can't think straight and can't stop yourself from driving drunk, go to rehab! Celebrity rehab actually looks like fun, if you don't count the withdrawal (from drugs, alcohol AND publicity).
Addiction is a terrible illness. When your parents are classless and whore you out from the age of ten like Lindsay's, you do't have much of a chance of escaping drugs when your crazy mom allows you to move to LA by yourself at 17. But the main problem for her is, while people might be forgiving, the insurance industry isn't. Try getting insurance for a movie starring a girl who goes to rehab once a month. It doesn't matter if you believe in her or feel sorry for her, as a Hollywood producer dealing with OTHER people's money, Lindsay's a risk you just can't take. Maybe she'll eventually become like Drew Berrymore - get her crazy mother out of her life, clean herself up, start producing her own projects and finally make a comeback after a few years of laying low. Maybe...
Thursday, May 31, 2007
A Generation of babies or just one that really wants babies?
My generation appears not to be into the extended adolesence thing at first glance. We want families and station wagons and we want them now. We've witnessed Gen X decide it was all about them and put off having babies for so long in order to get their fill or martini-swilling and Manolos that the entire generation now seems to be suffering from the infertility blues. We've seen it. We've babysat for their spoiled, neglected, ritalin-fuelled kids in their stainless steel homes full of kiddie smudges (for those of them who were lucky enough to realize fertility IS finite), and we don't want that. But is what WE want really any better?
My friend A. wants babies around 26. She is certain of this. This is a hard date, not an estimate that could change depending on where she finds herself at 26. She told me this recently over dinner. I replied the standard answer of my generation, which is, "Me too! I want to have my babies in my twenties too!" But then I added a caveat that isn't usually added to this dream, "If I can afford to have them and am in a healthy relationship." A. questioned this. "Define afford them," she challenged. "You know, I need a decent place to house them and money to feed and clothe them and save for their educations," I said simply. As though it were obvious, which I thought it was. A., who, like me, grew up with her own room and a private school education in a three-child family with professional baby boomer parents, feels we can basically have kids whenever, because we don't need to give our kids any of the stuff we had. IIn our upper-middle class social mileu (I am aware my observations are VERY Class dependant in this piece) We were raised in between the post-war period of well-disciplined kids who did chores for paltry allowances and the nanny-raised Gen X brats whose parents don't really love or want them and never spend time with them. We were the first generation to be spoiled, but I really do believe we were not just sleek fashion accessories to be dressed up in baby Burberry like so many last-minute Gen X babies out there. Our parents waited longer to have us than theirs did, but not as long as Gen X did. Typically til their late twenties for women and early thirties for men to have the first one. Why? Because they decided we needed our own rooms and big back yards and stylish clothes from the Gap in addition to parental love and all that jazz. Did we NEED this stuff? No. Did we like having it, yes. Do I think that maybe our desire to have kids before we can give them this stuff is just laziness, or a genuine, thought-out backlash against materialism? I think it's both. AFter all, no, kids don't NEED the the large room I occupied by myself in an exclusive Toronto neighbourhood or the private education I had, but there are lots of things kids DO need.
The Gen X babies' dreadful behaviour we all endured as their camp counsellors has become an excuse to be the products of a semi-spoiled upbrining without feeling we ever need to work as hard as our parents did to provide our children with the same trips to Disney world and Laura Ashley party dresses. Kids will increase our cool quotient, we know, and the way we plan to raise them won't cost us very much. The coolest Gen Y actors are all having or have had babies right now. Michelle WIlliams and Heath Ledger have baby Matilda, Bryce Dallas Howard just had her little one and even 21 year old Charlotte Church is in on the action. IS it because we want to prove we're so alternative we're having them younger than Gen Xers? We're not about stuff, we're about love and peace, dude. Well, the movie stars don't have to worry about stuff and babies. They can have both. But we can't, and kids are expensive and you DO have to save for them. No, not all kids need math tutors and braces, but some do, and if we just have kids with this laissez fair attitude that they can get by with less attitude, we might not be prepared for that. We don't need to spoil our kids, but maybe we should wait to have them until we have a little money saved, or are in the position to start saving, for their futures. You don't have a God-given right to a healthy, learning-disability free child. That stuff happens. The kids can still be great and almost always are, but sometimes they need help and you have to pay for it. Take autism treatments or even ballet lessons and soccer league! They're not free and they can be neccessary.
A. told me when I brought up all these concerns, that all parents need to do is to spend more time with their kids. I agree that Time is invaluable, but kids need a lot of things too that have an exacty monetary value that we have to pay for. It sucks that a lot of this stuff isn't free, which is what A. said. Yeah, I agree, and that affects how I vote, but if the changes don't come in time for the babies I want to have in 5 years (they probably won't with the conservatives in power) and I don't have much money, I think I'll wait just a bit longer. Being a parent is about responsibility. Part of being responsible is being patient. This makes me wonder if my generation's desire to have kids younger is a sign that we are maturing faster and are ready to nurture as nature intended, or if we're just like kids who don't want to wait until after dinner to have dissert? Sure, our grandparents did it young, but the cost of living was lower, the post-war economy was crazy and most women didn't work, so child-care was free. As much as I hate to admit it, maybe our parents did get it fairly right with how they had kids.
So, I'll have kids at 26, if I can, but if I can't, I'll be patient. That's what being a grown up is all about.
My friend A. wants babies around 26. She is certain of this. This is a hard date, not an estimate that could change depending on where she finds herself at 26. She told me this recently over dinner. I replied the standard answer of my generation, which is, "Me too! I want to have my babies in my twenties too!" But then I added a caveat that isn't usually added to this dream, "If I can afford to have them and am in a healthy relationship." A. questioned this. "Define afford them," she challenged. "You know, I need a decent place to house them and money to feed and clothe them and save for their educations," I said simply. As though it were obvious, which I thought it was. A., who, like me, grew up with her own room and a private school education in a three-child family with professional baby boomer parents, feels we can basically have kids whenever, because we don't need to give our kids any of the stuff we had. IIn our upper-middle class social mileu (I am aware my observations are VERY Class dependant in this piece) We were raised in between the post-war period of well-disciplined kids who did chores for paltry allowances and the nanny-raised Gen X brats whose parents don't really love or want them and never spend time with them. We were the first generation to be spoiled, but I really do believe we were not just sleek fashion accessories to be dressed up in baby Burberry like so many last-minute Gen X babies out there. Our parents waited longer to have us than theirs did, but not as long as Gen X did. Typically til their late twenties for women and early thirties for men to have the first one. Why? Because they decided we needed our own rooms and big back yards and stylish clothes from the Gap in addition to parental love and all that jazz. Did we NEED this stuff? No. Did we like having it, yes. Do I think that maybe our desire to have kids before we can give them this stuff is just laziness, or a genuine, thought-out backlash against materialism? I think it's both. AFter all, no, kids don't NEED the the large room I occupied by myself in an exclusive Toronto neighbourhood or the private education I had, but there are lots of things kids DO need.
The Gen X babies' dreadful behaviour we all endured as their camp counsellors has become an excuse to be the products of a semi-spoiled upbrining without feeling we ever need to work as hard as our parents did to provide our children with the same trips to Disney world and Laura Ashley party dresses. Kids will increase our cool quotient, we know, and the way we plan to raise them won't cost us very much. The coolest Gen Y actors are all having or have had babies right now. Michelle WIlliams and Heath Ledger have baby Matilda, Bryce Dallas Howard just had her little one and even 21 year old Charlotte Church is in on the action. IS it because we want to prove we're so alternative we're having them younger than Gen Xers? We're not about stuff, we're about love and peace, dude. Well, the movie stars don't have to worry about stuff and babies. They can have both. But we can't, and kids are expensive and you DO have to save for them. No, not all kids need math tutors and braces, but some do, and if we just have kids with this laissez fair attitude that they can get by with less attitude, we might not be prepared for that. We don't need to spoil our kids, but maybe we should wait to have them until we have a little money saved, or are in the position to start saving, for their futures. You don't have a God-given right to a healthy, learning-disability free child. That stuff happens. The kids can still be great and almost always are, but sometimes they need help and you have to pay for it. Take autism treatments or even ballet lessons and soccer league! They're not free and they can be neccessary.
A. told me when I brought up all these concerns, that all parents need to do is to spend more time with their kids. I agree that Time is invaluable, but kids need a lot of things too that have an exacty monetary value that we have to pay for. It sucks that a lot of this stuff isn't free, which is what A. said. Yeah, I agree, and that affects how I vote, but if the changes don't come in time for the babies I want to have in 5 years (they probably won't with the conservatives in power) and I don't have much money, I think I'll wait just a bit longer. Being a parent is about responsibility. Part of being responsible is being patient. This makes me wonder if my generation's desire to have kids younger is a sign that we are maturing faster and are ready to nurture as nature intended, or if we're just like kids who don't want to wait until after dinner to have dissert? Sure, our grandparents did it young, but the cost of living was lower, the post-war economy was crazy and most women didn't work, so child-care was free. As much as I hate to admit it, maybe our parents did get it fairly right with how they had kids.
So, I'll have kids at 26, if I can, but if I can't, I'll be patient. That's what being a grown up is all about.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Why didn't she get fired again?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070530.wtimhortons30/BNStory/National/home
A teenage female employee at a Tim Horton's in Alberta wrote a sign and hung it on the drive-through door of the shop. It read, "No drunken Indians allowed." She was reprimanded, naturally, but they did not fire her. They want to give her a second chance. Ah, what? I'm sorry, some things don't deserve a second chance. Or, sometimes, in order to take advantage of a second chance, you have to receive a punishment that makes an impact first. I'm not saying other people shouldn't hire her if she seems truly remorseful and to have learned, but the lesson will sting more and last longer if she is told that, in life, certain actions are deal-breakers in personal and professional relationships. Offended part of the clientele at Tim's with such a racist joke is a deal-breaker for, or it should be. Aboriginal customers will feel she got off easy (because she did) and will not feel entirely safe going in there (to her specific establishment at the least).
Somtimes, the best anti-racist education one can get is a kick to the teeth that says, "No, if you act like that, you will be fired and will have to find somewhere else to go." If we all had a zero tolerance policy where racism were concerned, I guarantee you people would learn to shut up and that racist jokes aren't funny! She'd find another job, and in order to avoid being fired again, unless she is beyond stupid, she would learn not to say offensive things. The best second chance at life we can give this girl is not a slap on the rist and a mandatory racism awareness class, but a lesson that hurting others closes doors for you.
A teenage female employee at a Tim Horton's in Alberta wrote a sign and hung it on the drive-through door of the shop. It read, "No drunken Indians allowed." She was reprimanded, naturally, but they did not fire her. They want to give her a second chance. Ah, what? I'm sorry, some things don't deserve a second chance. Or, sometimes, in order to take advantage of a second chance, you have to receive a punishment that makes an impact first. I'm not saying other people shouldn't hire her if she seems truly remorseful and to have learned, but the lesson will sting more and last longer if she is told that, in life, certain actions are deal-breakers in personal and professional relationships. Offended part of the clientele at Tim's with such a racist joke is a deal-breaker for, or it should be. Aboriginal customers will feel she got off easy (because she did) and will not feel entirely safe going in there (to her specific establishment at the least).
Somtimes, the best anti-racist education one can get is a kick to the teeth that says, "No, if you act like that, you will be fired and will have to find somewhere else to go." If we all had a zero tolerance policy where racism were concerned, I guarantee you people would learn to shut up and that racist jokes aren't funny! She'd find another job, and in order to avoid being fired again, unless she is beyond stupid, she would learn not to say offensive things. The best second chance at life we can give this girl is not a slap on the rist and a mandatory racism awareness class, but a lesson that hurting others closes doors for you.
Friday, May 25, 2007
When skinny is so not hot...
So, today I saw a shot pappies took of Beyonce, and can I just say, when did she get so emaciated? She's sooo skinny. Almost to the point of scarry skinny. The picture was not taken that close up, and I could easiy see the outline of her rip cage and she lay on her beach chair. What happened to the bootylicious Beyonce who practically made her name off her ass? She Loooved that ass! She wrote songs about that ass - and now it's gone! WTF? This all seems so silly to me. There used to be rumours her ass was insured against freak disfiguring accidents, and now she's dieted it all away on her own?
Why do all actresses thinnify? Why? I mean, naturally skinny people can be beautiful, but no more beautiful than naturally curvy people, just different. And there is nothing worse than someone straining to change their natural size. It looks unhealthy and painful. Sandrah Oh, for example, is skinny but glows and looks healthy. It looks normal. Ellen Pompeo, on the other hand, looks strained, as does Beyonce right now. I don't get why naturally curvy people are afraid of their own curves? Scarjo is declared by most men's mags to be the sexiest girl in the world, Katherine Heigl is universally known as the hottest girl on Grey's and Jennifer Lopez is STILL a sex symbol after ten years as the ingenue (something that hardly EVER happens in Hollywood). Curves sell. They are marketable. They are hot. They are not the only way to be hot, but they're a good one that can make you a lot of money and get you a lot of hot dates (Case in Point: COmpare the hottness of Scarjo's dates to Lindsay Lohan's and I think it's obvious who the winner is).
Being the right size for you makes you look the best for you. Vince VAughn was even said to be annoyed by Jennifer Aniston's daily two hour work outs and the perpetual zone diet needed to keep her 30 pounds lighter than the voluptuous body she naturally had starting out on Friends in her mid twenties. Why was he so annoyed? Well, how interesting could a person possibly be if she spent all day obsessed with keeping herself underweight? That and, she was much hotter when she wasn't starving herself and overtraining.
To illuminate my point, I prepared a list called "Thin and Hot; Thin and Not." It shows you the diff between girls who are obviously naturally thin and rock that look, and girls who look like lillipops.
Thin and Hot
1. Kate Moss
2. Sandrah Oh
3. Keira Knightley
4. Nicole Kidman (minus the forehead. Cut back on the Botox)
5. Naomie Watts (when not pregnant)
6. Carrie Russell
7. Lucy Liu
8. Eva Longoria
9. Ahsley Judd
10. Kate Blanchett
11. Kate Hudson.
12. Gwyneth Paltrow
13. Courtney Cox
Thin an Not
1. Beyonce
2. Ellen Pompeo
3. Nicole Ritchie
4. Jennifer Aniston
5. Sharon Stone
6. The Olsen twins
7. Teri Hatcher
8. Renee Zelwigger
9. Maria Shreiver
10. Janice Dickinson
11. Mischa Barton
12. Kirsten Dunst
13. Jemima Khan
Visualize these examples. Can you see the difference? I can!
Why do all actresses thinnify? Why? I mean, naturally skinny people can be beautiful, but no more beautiful than naturally curvy people, just different. And there is nothing worse than someone straining to change their natural size. It looks unhealthy and painful. Sandrah Oh, for example, is skinny but glows and looks healthy. It looks normal. Ellen Pompeo, on the other hand, looks strained, as does Beyonce right now. I don't get why naturally curvy people are afraid of their own curves? Scarjo is declared by most men's mags to be the sexiest girl in the world, Katherine Heigl is universally known as the hottest girl on Grey's and Jennifer Lopez is STILL a sex symbol after ten years as the ingenue (something that hardly EVER happens in Hollywood). Curves sell. They are marketable. They are hot. They are not the only way to be hot, but they're a good one that can make you a lot of money and get you a lot of hot dates (Case in Point: COmpare the hottness of Scarjo's dates to Lindsay Lohan's and I think it's obvious who the winner is).
Being the right size for you makes you look the best for you. Vince VAughn was even said to be annoyed by Jennifer Aniston's daily two hour work outs and the perpetual zone diet needed to keep her 30 pounds lighter than the voluptuous body she naturally had starting out on Friends in her mid twenties. Why was he so annoyed? Well, how interesting could a person possibly be if she spent all day obsessed with keeping herself underweight? That and, she was much hotter when she wasn't starving herself and overtraining.
To illuminate my point, I prepared a list called "Thin and Hot; Thin and Not." It shows you the diff between girls who are obviously naturally thin and rock that look, and girls who look like lillipops.
Thin and Hot
1. Kate Moss
2. Sandrah Oh
3. Keira Knightley
4. Nicole Kidman (minus the forehead. Cut back on the Botox)
5. Naomie Watts (when not pregnant)
6. Carrie Russell
7. Lucy Liu
8. Eva Longoria
9. Ahsley Judd
10. Kate Blanchett
11. Kate Hudson.
12. Gwyneth Paltrow
13. Courtney Cox
Thin an Not
1. Beyonce
2. Ellen Pompeo
3. Nicole Ritchie
4. Jennifer Aniston
5. Sharon Stone
6. The Olsen twins
7. Teri Hatcher
8. Renee Zelwigger
9. Maria Shreiver
10. Janice Dickinson
11. Mischa Barton
12. Kirsten Dunst
13. Jemima Khan
Visualize these examples. Can you see the difference? I can!
Thursday, May 24, 2007
How to Find a Husband - The WRONG way....
I now know how to find a successful, long-term relationship. This is all thanks to Steve Santagati, author of dating advice book The MANual. My mother, in her infinite wisdown, decided that her twenty one year old daughter (me) will never be able to find a mate if left to her own devices, so she bought me this book off Amazon. I did not want this book. I do not want this book still (WOuld you like it? It's free!), but I did read this book. Why? Because when one's own mother implies one is dating-challenged with a book for people who are special needs in the area of romance, you have a twenty minute freak-out that lasts just long enough for you to believe your mother must be right until the end of chapter one. Then you get offended and angry, and continue to read so you have ammunition against her for the next fight; "HEy, remeber that book you gave me? IT told me to dress like a dominatrix to attract men! What kind of a mother gives a book like that to her daughter?!!!"
I am not sure why my mother thinks I'm so dating-challenged, or why she's giving me books aimed at 35 year professional single women who want to get married even more than I currently want to spend a summer traveling through the shopping and clubbing capitols of Europe. Do I look like I fit into this demographic? It seems like just yesterday I was in grade 12 and in the "When and how should I lose my virginity?" demographic. Now I'm in the I'm desperate to get married one? Well, even so, after reading aloud from Steve's book to my male friends, they have universally informed me that the advice wouldn't get me married even if I did want to follow it.
I told my male friend R. about it. R. identifies as a nice guy. He doesn't like guys who cheat on girls and he would like to have a family someday. The book tells girls they actually do not like nice guys like this. IT says we actually want "Bad Boys" because we like edge. Steve then goes on to teach us tricks to attract bad boys, like hanging out on the beach and doing extreme sports like they supposedly do. R. Was offended. IT seems to be Steve's life mission to ENSURE nice guys finish last.
It gets worse. One of the tricks Steve recommends to attract men is to study porn, find an actress you like, and try to embody her look on a day to day basis. My guy friend Z. said, "I'd love that!" But then I asked him, "Would you marry that?" He replied, "No, but I would still love that!" Well, the point of the book was to get me married, not laid. I already knew dressing slutty could get me a one-night stand any day of the week. I'm not retarded! What the hell did my mother pay $30 for? I then told this piece of advice about dressing like a porn star to R. He said exactly what I had though, "Well, that'll get you laid, but I don't think it will get you married, or even get you a second date." S., a female friend of mine, said, "As if when any guy sees a girl dressed like a naughty nurse, he thinks 'now that's the mother of my children!'". I agree. I'm sure sexy helps attracts great guys, but subtle sexy. I- want- to -settle- down- and- not- fuck- your- best- friend-at-a-Christmas-Party sexy, as I call it. The whole point of porn is these women are supposed to be sluts any guy can fuck any time, not actual girls you go grocery shopping with.
Not all Steve's hints are bad. He tells women to go and meet men where men hang out in higher numbers, like at Home Depot. But really, I knew that already. I saw that two years ago on an episode of G-Spot. So, even when he's right, Steve's not that original. It's not surprising that he lacks sound advice, though, because Steve's only qualification is that he was a male model. At least with Greg Behrendt, who also lacked any real credentials other than being a fairly average looking guy, he makes you laugh. Greg writes down a hole bunch of obvious ways to point out a guy isn't into you, and then writes them humourously, so it's easier to accept the depressing truth that a guy not calling you, not showing up, or not sleeping with you means he's just not that into you. Steve tries to mimick Behrendt's smartassy but friendly tone, but Behrendt is an actual comedian who knows his way around a witty sentence. Male-model Steve however, seems only to be proficient at posing.
I am not sure why my mother thinks I'm so dating-challenged, or why she's giving me books aimed at 35 year professional single women who want to get married even more than I currently want to spend a summer traveling through the shopping and clubbing capitols of Europe. Do I look like I fit into this demographic? It seems like just yesterday I was in grade 12 and in the "When and how should I lose my virginity?" demographic. Now I'm in the I'm desperate to get married one? Well, even so, after reading aloud from Steve's book to my male friends, they have universally informed me that the advice wouldn't get me married even if I did want to follow it.
I told my male friend R. about it. R. identifies as a nice guy. He doesn't like guys who cheat on girls and he would like to have a family someday. The book tells girls they actually do not like nice guys like this. IT says we actually want "Bad Boys" because we like edge. Steve then goes on to teach us tricks to attract bad boys, like hanging out on the beach and doing extreme sports like they supposedly do. R. Was offended. IT seems to be Steve's life mission to ENSURE nice guys finish last.
It gets worse. One of the tricks Steve recommends to attract men is to study porn, find an actress you like, and try to embody her look on a day to day basis. My guy friend Z. said, "I'd love that!" But then I asked him, "Would you marry that?" He replied, "No, but I would still love that!" Well, the point of the book was to get me married, not laid. I already knew dressing slutty could get me a one-night stand any day of the week. I'm not retarded! What the hell did my mother pay $30 for? I then told this piece of advice about dressing like a porn star to R. He said exactly what I had though, "Well, that'll get you laid, but I don't think it will get you married, or even get you a second date." S., a female friend of mine, said, "As if when any guy sees a girl dressed like a naughty nurse, he thinks 'now that's the mother of my children!'". I agree. I'm sure sexy helps attracts great guys, but subtle sexy. I- want- to -settle- down- and- not- fuck- your- best- friend-at-a-Christmas-Party sexy, as I call it. The whole point of porn is these women are supposed to be sluts any guy can fuck any time, not actual girls you go grocery shopping with.
Not all Steve's hints are bad. He tells women to go and meet men where men hang out in higher numbers, like at Home Depot. But really, I knew that already. I saw that two years ago on an episode of G-Spot. So, even when he's right, Steve's not that original. It's not surprising that he lacks sound advice, though, because Steve's only qualification is that he was a male model. At least with Greg Behrendt, who also lacked any real credentials other than being a fairly average looking guy, he makes you laugh. Greg writes down a hole bunch of obvious ways to point out a guy isn't into you, and then writes them humourously, so it's easier to accept the depressing truth that a guy not calling you, not showing up, or not sleeping with you means he's just not that into you. Steve tries to mimick Behrendt's smartassy but friendly tone, but Behrendt is an actual comedian who knows his way around a witty sentence. Male-model Steve however, seems only to be proficient at posing.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Feminists: Enemies of the Man-Haters
Feminists are often branded as man-haters. That's ridiculous. A contemporary feminist is the least likely of anyone I know to say something like, "All men are pigs!" Or, "Only a man could be so insensitive!" Why? This is because we dont' essentialize gender differences. Judith Butler and Bell Hooks and numerous others have helped us realize that gender is largely socially constructed. Men aren't necessarily born to be insensitive and obsessed with hockey, it could all be in how they are socialized by their families' and society's expectations.
The feminist women I know believe much of women's oppression is caused by the idea that gender-role stereotypes about women are our destiny. SOme women don't want to be mothers and are upset they are expected to have babylust at least by age 30. Some women like sports and can't stand the assertion that they are "tombodys" (ie. less than perfect women) for doing so. SOme women don't understand why they are expected to like shoes or be able to cook and clean when they have no talent for domesticity. We hate the rigidity of gender codes that are supposed to signal our sex. We realize no woman embodies all the stereotypes that inform our definitions of what is typically gendered female in this world, so why on earth would we expect men to? Feminists get that not all men are pigs. Not all men are violent. NOt all men are career-oriented. NOt all men like or are even good at sports. Not all men are bad dressers. We get that. We don't hate men, we hate the patriarchal structure that places a burden on men to be these things, to be aggressive and dominant and oppressive. We know it is a strain on you to have to be the primary breadwinners, the soldiers, the politicians, the global business leaders. We realize that this expectation that a man is less than a man unless he wants to conquer the world must hurt you as much as a society that constructs women as passive and subservient.
So men, when, as a feminist, I say I hate the patriarchy, it doesn't mean I hate you. I hate a societal construction that forces men to be dominant and women to be submissive but pretending that it is natural all men act one way and all women act another.
The feminist women I know believe much of women's oppression is caused by the idea that gender-role stereotypes about women are our destiny. SOme women don't want to be mothers and are upset they are expected to have babylust at least by age 30. Some women like sports and can't stand the assertion that they are "tombodys" (ie. less than perfect women) for doing so. SOme women don't understand why they are expected to like shoes or be able to cook and clean when they have no talent for domesticity. We hate the rigidity of gender codes that are supposed to signal our sex. We realize no woman embodies all the stereotypes that inform our definitions of what is typically gendered female in this world, so why on earth would we expect men to? Feminists get that not all men are pigs. Not all men are violent. NOt all men are career-oriented. NOt all men like or are even good at sports. Not all men are bad dressers. We get that. We don't hate men, we hate the patriarchal structure that places a burden on men to be these things, to be aggressive and dominant and oppressive. We know it is a strain on you to have to be the primary breadwinners, the soldiers, the politicians, the global business leaders. We realize that this expectation that a man is less than a man unless he wants to conquer the world must hurt you as much as a society that constructs women as passive and subservient.
So men, when, as a feminist, I say I hate the patriarchy, it doesn't mean I hate you. I hate a societal construction that forces men to be dominant and women to be submissive but pretending that it is natural all men act one way and all women act another.
Monday, May 21, 2007
In defense of superficiality....
Lots of people object to celebrating beauty. They decry People Mag's Beautiful People Issue and fashion models and all that. They ( the critics) say people - especially women - should be celebrated for our intellects and what we achieve, not how we LOOK! Okay, as a smart woman, I see how this is unfair. If I'm smart, then I have license to look frumpy and I'll still be celebrated, but a woman who might not be smart but has the potential to be gorgeous, is just screwed. She has no life advantages.
The truth is, being born smart or talented is just as much as a genetic lottery as being born beautiful. So, the people lucky enough to be born smart or talented can be celebrated, but we have a double-standard for celebrating those who happen to be born beautiful? COme on! I know what you'll say - "But Sarah, at least the accomplishments smart people produce take actually work!" Here's my answer, "I'm sure being beautiful takes just as much work." Learning to do one's hair skillfully and mastering invisible make-up every morning is something that must take work. Keeping from letting one's figure go because it's all one really has must take work. Keeping up with trends because there's no use in being pretty if you look frumpy takes work too. No, it's not doing a physics problem, but who are we to say phyisical maintenance is less work for a pretty girl than studying physics is for a smart girl?
So, why is it that it's okay to decry the media for focusing too much on pretty people, when it would be absurd to say the media values smart people too much? I mean, smart and talented people get their share of coverage that much alienate people who have no talent or intelligence. I mean, think of those talented interior decorators or carpenters on design shows, intelligent commentators on the BBC, CNN or the CBC. Think of how we make fun of stupid people, like Paris Hilton or Jessica Simpson ALL THE TIME! Think about shows devoted to making people look stupid, like "ARE you Smarter than a 5th grader?" No one ever says, look guys, there is a lot of media that fetishizes natural talent and intelligence, and we're making other people feel bad!" No, and you know why? Because we have a double standard. It's okay to hate on pretty people and the publications or productions that love on them, but why? If smart and talented people deserve recognition through The Nobel Prize, the Pulitizer Prize, The Giller Prize, The Tonies and many many more. I have no problem with superficial fashion mags or runways shows that give pretty people their due. Hey, they should be able to look at the media and see reflections of themselves too, just as I can whenever I watch those smart 5th graders trounce those adults each week!
The truth is, being born smart or talented is just as much as a genetic lottery as being born beautiful. So, the people lucky enough to be born smart or talented can be celebrated, but we have a double-standard for celebrating those who happen to be born beautiful? COme on! I know what you'll say - "But Sarah, at least the accomplishments smart people produce take actually work!" Here's my answer, "I'm sure being beautiful takes just as much work." Learning to do one's hair skillfully and mastering invisible make-up every morning is something that must take work. Keeping from letting one's figure go because it's all one really has must take work. Keeping up with trends because there's no use in being pretty if you look frumpy takes work too. No, it's not doing a physics problem, but who are we to say phyisical maintenance is less work for a pretty girl than studying physics is for a smart girl?
So, why is it that it's okay to decry the media for focusing too much on pretty people, when it would be absurd to say the media values smart people too much? I mean, smart and talented people get their share of coverage that much alienate people who have no talent or intelligence. I mean, think of those talented interior decorators or carpenters on design shows, intelligent commentators on the BBC, CNN or the CBC. Think of how we make fun of stupid people, like Paris Hilton or Jessica Simpson ALL THE TIME! Think about shows devoted to making people look stupid, like "ARE you Smarter than a 5th grader?" No one ever says, look guys, there is a lot of media that fetishizes natural talent and intelligence, and we're making other people feel bad!" No, and you know why? Because we have a double standard. It's okay to hate on pretty people and the publications or productions that love on them, but why? If smart and talented people deserve recognition through The Nobel Prize, the Pulitizer Prize, The Giller Prize, The Tonies and many many more. I have no problem with superficial fashion mags or runways shows that give pretty people their due. Hey, they should be able to look at the media and see reflections of themselves too, just as I can whenever I watch those smart 5th graders trounce those adults each week!
Questions that bother me...
1. Who is Jared Leto and why has every woman in Hollywood dated him?
2. Is Suri Cruise half Asian?
3. Who will win the Democratic nomination and will Al Gore even run for it?
4. Did Peter McKay and Condy Rice ACTUALLY have sex? Did Condy get access to Peter's bits, or just Tim Bits, while visiting his home in Nova Scotia?
5. Is it possible to be super-model skinny naturally, or are all those girls really just anorexic?
6. Was Queen Elizabeth I actually a virgin, or wasn't she?
7. And finally, here is the most important question: Will the Conservatives lose the next federal election? Dear, God, I hope so....
2. Is Suri Cruise half Asian?
3. Who will win the Democratic nomination and will Al Gore even run for it?
4. Did Peter McKay and Condy Rice ACTUALLY have sex? Did Condy get access to Peter's bits, or just Tim Bits, while visiting his home in Nova Scotia?
5. Is it possible to be super-model skinny naturally, or are all those girls really just anorexic?
6. Was Queen Elizabeth I actually a virgin, or wasn't she?
7. And finally, here is the most important question: Will the Conservatives lose the next federal election? Dear, God, I hope so....
Friday, May 18, 2007
I'd rather have a baby at 22 than 42
Why can't I have a baby? Right now, that is. Why can't I have one now? Of course, I am single, but that's because, at 21, society tells me to be. Society tells me that I'm a university student who should be having fun and not WANT to settle down just yet. Society tells me that my 21 male counterparts aren't ready to settle down and not even to try talking to them about families until they're about 30. Society tells me it's hopeless and that if I accidentally were to get pregnant, it would be the end of my life. But would it?
I have always wanted babies while I was young and energetic. PHysically, the ideal age of have a baby for a woman is 22. NOt all women are ready to have a baby at 22, but Canadian bourgeous society does a very good job of trying to make us believe that no woman really is. Why have a baby at 22? Party at 22 and have a baby at 32. It's ironic that I'm spending the most fertile years of my life trying desperately NOT to get pregnant, and will probably spend the least fertile years of my pre-menopausal life desperately trying to get pregnant as a result. Why couldn't I take advantage of being 22, the age my body obviously intended for me to have children at (if not my society) and have a baby now! Then, when the baby is grown up, when I'm 40, I can party then. IT's not physically impossible to party at 40, but despite us chicks being spry and good looking into middle age these days, our eggs are not so fresh. Why can't I have kids young AND then focus on a career once they're gone, as opposed to starting a career, taking a break in my mid-thirties to rear babies, then trying to catch up again in my 40's. Does that really make me professionally better off than not really trying to start a high-power career until the kids I had in my early twenties are at school full-time? Joy Behar and Madeleine Albright found that kids young and careers older was a way to great professional success. That's even in a society that looks down on young mothers, though I suppose it probably wasn't as bad in their youth.
Anyway, there is a reason 40 year old executives the world over are discovering they missed out on having a baby - they were told to go for their careers first, and families second, and sometimes, it just can't work that way. NOt only is it harder to conceive, when you're older, it's harder on your body to have a baby and your baby is more likely to be born with birth defects or miscarry in the womb. I'm sorry, but why does this sound like a good age to have a baby? Because I've had more time to buy designer shoes with my pre-baby disposable income? Because that's the only real advantage I can see. People say they are wiser, better mothers at 40 than they would have been in their 20's. I ask, how do you know that? What did all your yuppy parties and late nights in the boardroom really teach you about parenting? Unless you have a job working with kids, I don't buy this argument. I know there are people who mature more slowly, and can't imagining the all-encompassing job of caring for another human being until they're 36. I know there are people who want a partner before they mate and can't find one who sticks until they are older, for some reason. I'm not saying these women should remain childless forever; however, I am saying we should stop discouraging people who don't fall into these categories from having babies at the age their bodies meant them to start.
SO, no, I'm not going to have a baby at 22. It's just not going to happen. PArt of this is due to socially constructed barriers that don't have to exist, and part of this is because, whether I'm brainwashed or not, I'm not quite ready. But I would like to be able to have a baby before my twenties are over. Sure, there's a possibility I could get away with clubbing my youth away and still be able to get pregnant no problem at 42, but I'd rather not take that risk. I value the prospect of motherhood more than drinking $18 martinis at some yuppy bar...
I have always wanted babies while I was young and energetic. PHysically, the ideal age of have a baby for a woman is 22. NOt all women are ready to have a baby at 22, but Canadian bourgeous society does a very good job of trying to make us believe that no woman really is. Why have a baby at 22? Party at 22 and have a baby at 32. It's ironic that I'm spending the most fertile years of my life trying desperately NOT to get pregnant, and will probably spend the least fertile years of my pre-menopausal life desperately trying to get pregnant as a result. Why couldn't I take advantage of being 22, the age my body obviously intended for me to have children at (if not my society) and have a baby now! Then, when the baby is grown up, when I'm 40, I can party then. IT's not physically impossible to party at 40, but despite us chicks being spry and good looking into middle age these days, our eggs are not so fresh. Why can't I have kids young AND then focus on a career once they're gone, as opposed to starting a career, taking a break in my mid-thirties to rear babies, then trying to catch up again in my 40's. Does that really make me professionally better off than not really trying to start a high-power career until the kids I had in my early twenties are at school full-time? Joy Behar and Madeleine Albright found that kids young and careers older was a way to great professional success. That's even in a society that looks down on young mothers, though I suppose it probably wasn't as bad in their youth.
Anyway, there is a reason 40 year old executives the world over are discovering they missed out on having a baby - they were told to go for their careers first, and families second, and sometimes, it just can't work that way. NOt only is it harder to conceive, when you're older, it's harder on your body to have a baby and your baby is more likely to be born with birth defects or miscarry in the womb. I'm sorry, but why does this sound like a good age to have a baby? Because I've had more time to buy designer shoes with my pre-baby disposable income? Because that's the only real advantage I can see. People say they are wiser, better mothers at 40 than they would have been in their 20's. I ask, how do you know that? What did all your yuppy parties and late nights in the boardroom really teach you about parenting? Unless you have a job working with kids, I don't buy this argument. I know there are people who mature more slowly, and can't imagining the all-encompassing job of caring for another human being until they're 36. I know there are people who want a partner before they mate and can't find one who sticks until they are older, for some reason. I'm not saying these women should remain childless forever; however, I am saying we should stop discouraging people who don't fall into these categories from having babies at the age their bodies meant them to start.
SO, no, I'm not going to have a baby at 22. It's just not going to happen. PArt of this is due to socially constructed barriers that don't have to exist, and part of this is because, whether I'm brainwashed or not, I'm not quite ready. But I would like to be able to have a baby before my twenties are over. Sure, there's a possibility I could get away with clubbing my youth away and still be able to get pregnant no problem at 42, but I'd rather not take that risk. I value the prospect of motherhood more than drinking $18 martinis at some yuppy bar...
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
ANTM = America's Next Top Mockery
So, tonight is the finale of America's Next Top Model (ANTM to those of you who actually watch it). I semi-followed the second season, but I hadn't really given to hoots since then, until this season, the show's 8th cycle, which I inadvertantly got hooked to when I was finished exams before all my friends and consequently had no one to hang out with alluc.org. Anyway, I was never really a fan before because the girls never made it. It was a pointless competition because the winner never goes anywhere. I hate to break it to you, but these girls are all at least 18 and most are in their early twenties. That's too OLD to make it in modeling. Seriously. You have to start at like 14. They want wrinkle-free, line-free, pre-pubescent poles to model clothes. If you have charisma and skill, you have a one in a million chance of going from model to supermodel and having a long-term career like Kate Moss, but most girls are finished in this industry by their twentieth birthdays. Starting at 22 just isn't gonna get you anywhere. Furthermore, if these girls actually had the potential to make it as a model, they would show up at an agency, have a brief interview and get hired. They wouldn't need some silly reality contest just to get a contract with Ford Models.
Despite the fact that I KNOW these girls won't make it and there's no point in pretending, I can be entertained when watching. The show has a lurid watchability. Perhaps it's how pathetic it is that makes it like a car crash on the high way - people are hurt and it's so sad, but you can't look away! ANTM hurts people. Tyra lies and pretends they'll make it, but none of them ever show up as the new model in Chanel or Armani ads. They don't do runway for Louis Vuitton or Gucci or even for Betsey Johnson and Cynthia Rowley. They simply disappear. Watching the show, I already know all these girls, including the winner, have already disappeared into oblivion. They come to the show to escape poverty, single-motherhood, hum-drum mid-western lifestyles and unsatisfying romantic relationships because Tyra Banks promises them the world. She promises the final 14 they have a shot at winning, and that the winner will be a superstar. Then the editors to their magic and cut the girls into catty, uneducated, unlikeable, unintelligent baffoons to maintain the show's ratings. By the 8th go-round of this show, it's obvious that the only one becoming a superstar from this show is Tyra Banks and the other judges who harshly critique the girls every week for not living up to their "Top Model Potential," when they know that if any of them actually had that, they'd be top models already.
Tyra Banks is associated with numerous charitable foundations to increase the self-esteem of young women with troubled lives, and yet multiple times a year, she herself ruins the self-esteem and plays on the ridiculous hopes of a group of young girls before millions of viewers. How hypocritical, is all I can think while watching! But how comical it is, as well, when Dionne doesn't really get why aboriginal Australian dancing differs from American hip hop moves, or when the one college-educated contestant per show smirks at the others for not understanding the definition of anorexia or how Congress works. She smirks and laughs at the poor girls who often are ignorant because they are under-privileges in a US with a huge class-divide, and I'm not proud of this, but I often smirk along. It's a group of women who aren't actually going to make it as models who are also really ignorant. It's certainly a catty self-confidence booster on my part.
Despite the fact that I KNOW these girls won't make it and there's no point in pretending, I can be entertained when watching. The show has a lurid watchability. Perhaps it's how pathetic it is that makes it like a car crash on the high way - people are hurt and it's so sad, but you can't look away! ANTM hurts people. Tyra lies and pretends they'll make it, but none of them ever show up as the new model in Chanel or Armani ads. They don't do runway for Louis Vuitton or Gucci or even for Betsey Johnson and Cynthia Rowley. They simply disappear. Watching the show, I already know all these girls, including the winner, have already disappeared into oblivion. They come to the show to escape poverty, single-motherhood, hum-drum mid-western lifestyles and unsatisfying romantic relationships because Tyra Banks promises them the world. She promises the final 14 they have a shot at winning, and that the winner will be a superstar. Then the editors to their magic and cut the girls into catty, uneducated, unlikeable, unintelligent baffoons to maintain the show's ratings. By the 8th go-round of this show, it's obvious that the only one becoming a superstar from this show is Tyra Banks and the other judges who harshly critique the girls every week for not living up to their "Top Model Potential," when they know that if any of them actually had that, they'd be top models already.
Tyra Banks is associated with numerous charitable foundations to increase the self-esteem of young women with troubled lives, and yet multiple times a year, she herself ruins the self-esteem and plays on the ridiculous hopes of a group of young girls before millions of viewers. How hypocritical, is all I can think while watching! But how comical it is, as well, when Dionne doesn't really get why aboriginal Australian dancing differs from American hip hop moves, or when the one college-educated contestant per show smirks at the others for not understanding the definition of anorexia or how Congress works. She smirks and laughs at the poor girls who often are ignorant because they are under-privileges in a US with a huge class-divide, and I'm not proud of this, but I often smirk along. It's a group of women who aren't actually going to make it as models who are also really ignorant. It's certainly a catty self-confidence booster on my part.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Stay in School, Kids
Researching graduate schools is something that every pretentious soon-to-be fourth year undergraduate has to do. In my case, it's not a substitute for law school or an attempt to make myself appear to have lofty, academic ambitious when I'm really just going to get an MBA. No, I actually want to go. I like the stuff I study and having done work and done school, I cannot figure out why so many people finish school and say, "it's such a relief to be working now! THe schedule's so much better!"
NOw, I get that it's cool to be paid, but the work-life schedule is NOT better. Workers have to work at least 8 hours a day when their bosses want them too. Now, I work hard, I work the equivolent to the 40 hour work week, but less my 12 hours of class a week, that's 40 hours a week done when I want to do it. THis means I sleep in, which means I can go out on weeknights and not be dead on my feet the next day. THis means I can do my work anywhere, and not just when I have access to my colleagues and secret work files that must be kept at work. I can spread my work out to do a bit over the weekend just so I can squeeze in some extra me time during the week if that's when I feel like doing my relazing, instead of just relaxing on Saturday whether I feel like it or not because that's when I have time to do so. I have flexibility.
Being an adult and a student is great. I live on my own and don't have parents telling me when to go to sleep like in high school, but I don't have a boss telling me when I have to get up like in the real world! Sure, education is an expensive habit. ANd once my education fund runs out, I'll be racking up student loans galore; however, you only have to stop paying student loans once you leave school, and who says I'm ever going to do that?
NOw, I get that it's cool to be paid, but the work-life schedule is NOT better. Workers have to work at least 8 hours a day when their bosses want them too. Now, I work hard, I work the equivolent to the 40 hour work week, but less my 12 hours of class a week, that's 40 hours a week done when I want to do it. THis means I sleep in, which means I can go out on weeknights and not be dead on my feet the next day. THis means I can do my work anywhere, and not just when I have access to my colleagues and secret work files that must be kept at work. I can spread my work out to do a bit over the weekend just so I can squeeze in some extra me time during the week if that's when I feel like doing my relazing, instead of just relaxing on Saturday whether I feel like it or not because that's when I have time to do so. I have flexibility.
Being an adult and a student is great. I live on my own and don't have parents telling me when to go to sleep like in high school, but I don't have a boss telling me when I have to get up like in the real world! Sure, education is an expensive habit. ANd once my education fund runs out, I'll be racking up student loans galore; however, you only have to stop paying student loans once you leave school, and who says I'm ever going to do that?
Monday, May 14, 2007
When Policy has Perverse Effects...
A kenyan woman will likely not be permitted to stay in Canada because she has HIV. She came to Canada years ago as a refugee from Kenya and works as a nurse; however, the irony is that though HIV is so widespread in Keyna in comparison with Canada, she contracted it here. A Canadian man knew he had HIV and he knowingly infected her. Because of this sexual assault, her medical bills are now so high they disqualify her from Canadian immigrant status and she will likely be deported. I'm sorry, but this policy of sending home immigrants who are too medically expensive should not apply here! The woman was attacked, essentially. She would not have contracted HIV had she not come here and been the victim of a Canadian's crime, and now we are sending this innocent woman home because one of our own nationals inflicted a situation on her that is too expensive for our public health care system to deal with? That's cruel and ridiculous. That's all it is.
Anyway, I have a more just solution. Sending this woman back to Kenya could kill her. Access to anti-retrovirals and adequate doctors appointments cannot be counted on in Kenya. THe medical infrastructure is not good. THis woman did nothing to deserve this sentence to discomfort and probably premature death. SO, since she's the better person. The less sociopathic person, I vote we keep her and send her attacker to Kenya! Sure, he's technically Canadian adn she's technically not, but it's more fitting to the spirit of justice, no? Anyway, read this story. It's very upsetting but it's interesting. It really illuminates the flaws in our immigration system and how justice can get lost in policy....
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070513.wHIV14/BNStory/National/home
Anyway, I have a more just solution. Sending this woman back to Kenya could kill her. Access to anti-retrovirals and adequate doctors appointments cannot be counted on in Kenya. THe medical infrastructure is not good. THis woman did nothing to deserve this sentence to discomfort and probably premature death. SO, since she's the better person. The less sociopathic person, I vote we keep her and send her attacker to Kenya! Sure, he's technically Canadian adn she's technically not, but it's more fitting to the spirit of justice, no? Anyway, read this story. It's very upsetting but it's interesting. It really illuminates the flaws in our immigration system and how justice can get lost in policy....
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070513.wHIV14/BNStory/National/home
Friday, May 11, 2007
If you support abortion, support the hijab...
I am not a Muslim woman. I am a woman whose ancestors were killed in ethnic conflicts with people who happened to be Muslim, but I do not buy into this rhetoric that Islam is evil and inherently sexist. I back the hijab. Well, I back women wearing the hijab by choice, if they choose to. THe state should not mandate its presence or its absence on women's heads. SO, no, I do not defend IRan's hijab policies, but Turkey's refusal to let veiled women serve as civil servants or members of government is also wrong.
What Turkey doesn't get is that you can have a secular state with no official religion while letting individual citizens practice their religion. Veiled women cannot attend medical school there. WHy not? If I am not veiled and you are, our society should be tolerant enough for me to understand that's your choice, and not being imposed on me. Indeed, if women can choose whether or not to wear the veil, then it is not being imposed on them. THis is why secularists and pro-Muslims are fighting in Turkey! They don't get that you can have a society where people can openly practice religion without having a theocracy or any kind of state religion. SO in Turkey, the 66% of women there who choose to veil must choose between de-veiling (something they consider a sin according ot Hadith and the Qur'an) or abandoning any dreams they might have of being doctors, civil servants or actual politicians. Turkey thinks secularism makes it more progressive, but for veiled women (most Turkish women) it's nothing but oppressive.
The right to cover my body as I wish is often shrugged off in the West. Jack Straw in Britain decried the hijab and refused to fulfill the rights of his veiled constituents to meet with him because of it. Feminists don't seem to mind though. Well, at least Western feminists don't mind. But doesn't everyone see that my right to control who sees my body (and wear a hijab) is just as important as the more favoured western right or women to reveal their figures for all to see. Wearing the hijab is a basic body right. I get to control who sees my body. So to all second wave feminists who support abortion because women have the right to control their bodies and what grows in them, you should also care enough about body rights' of muslim women to control who sees their bodies and how. If you support abortion, you should support the hijab! This is the biggest issue in body rights for Canadian women right now. No one should be able to tell a woman what she must wear! NOt her husband, and not a stupid MP like Jack Straw or an Islamophobic goalie at a Quebec hockey game...
What Turkey doesn't get is that you can have a secular state with no official religion while letting individual citizens practice their religion. Veiled women cannot attend medical school there. WHy not? If I am not veiled and you are, our society should be tolerant enough for me to understand that's your choice, and not being imposed on me. Indeed, if women can choose whether or not to wear the veil, then it is not being imposed on them. THis is why secularists and pro-Muslims are fighting in Turkey! They don't get that you can have a society where people can openly practice religion without having a theocracy or any kind of state religion. SO in Turkey, the 66% of women there who choose to veil must choose between de-veiling (something they consider a sin according ot Hadith and the Qur'an) or abandoning any dreams they might have of being doctors, civil servants or actual politicians. Turkey thinks secularism makes it more progressive, but for veiled women (most Turkish women) it's nothing but oppressive.
The right to cover my body as I wish is often shrugged off in the West. Jack Straw in Britain decried the hijab and refused to fulfill the rights of his veiled constituents to meet with him because of it. Feminists don't seem to mind though. Well, at least Western feminists don't mind. But doesn't everyone see that my right to control who sees my body (and wear a hijab) is just as important as the more favoured western right or women to reveal their figures for all to see. Wearing the hijab is a basic body right. I get to control who sees my body. So to all second wave feminists who support abortion because women have the right to control their bodies and what grows in them, you should also care enough about body rights' of muslim women to control who sees their bodies and how. If you support abortion, you should support the hijab! This is the biggest issue in body rights for Canadian women right now. No one should be able to tell a woman what she must wear! NOt her husband, and not a stupid MP like Jack Straw or an Islamophobic goalie at a Quebec hockey game...
WHo Cares if the Grey's girls like sex?
Okay, so the New York Times says Grey's Anatomy is BAD for women. Really bad. It claims their female characters are emotionally needy and oversex "basket cases." I would have to agree. That's why it's a SOAP OPERA. But still, does it really portray women in a worse light than any other tv show? I can't think of many (any?) strong, emotionally stable, intelligent women on tv. I really can't. GIlmore GIrls was close.
I really did think Rory Gilmore would grow up to be a strong woman who was okay with the fact that she wasn't a supermodel. Then she grow up into a painted harlet who lost her virginity to a married man who wasn't even all that interesting and wore tacky overly trendy clothes befitting Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton while attending her classes at Yale. Gone were her cute Gap-looking sweaters, jeans and simple lip gloss. Rory was drinking hard core with her socialite friends at the trendiest night clubs. What was worse was that Rory didn't OWN her new superficial, yuppy status. She wrote scathing social commentaries on the parties she went to with other rich people for Internet blogs and made snide comments to her rich boyfriend about how insufferable his other rich friends were. Rory was a hypocrite who lived with her billionaire boyfriend rent-free like a sugar baby while simultaneously denouncing everyone else for doing similar things. Sandrah Oh's Dr. Yang would definitely be a stronger role-model than a hypocritical twenty-something Ivy harlet. Dr. Yang is what she is. SHe's unapologetically driven. On this week's episode, in fact, she refused to discuss her fiance's whiney wedding problem with him because she realized the intern exam she had to write that day (and the affect it would have on HER career forever) was more important. SHe loves Burke and will marry him, but she is not subservient to him and sets firm boundaries. SHe knows when her stuff is more important. Sure she likes sex a lot, but does that make her oversexed? What exactly does oversexed mean? Christina still has time to kick ass at her medical internship, argue with her mother and hang out with her intern friends, so she can't be THAT oversexed. She's definitely not emotionally needy. She's not a sex addict. So since when does liking sex constitute a character flaw? Is it anti-feminist to like getting laid? Come on, NY times!
Now, Merideth's storylines that involve her various relatives facing their mortality on a bi-weekly basis may be ridiculous, but why is she? She's a girl with a partying past, but she's evolved. She shows women they can screw up while young but atone for that and still make it professionally and contribute to the world doing something they love. SHe also likes sex, but she even talks about her use of protection on the show, and since Grey's began, she's only had one sexual partner. She is not over-sexed. IS she a basket case? No, her story lines are crazy, but she doesn't really over-react to them. IF I were put in mortal danger every sweeps weak, I'd be a bit anxious too.
Now for the beauteous Izzie. Again, likes sex, not addicted. Only had two sexual partners over the course of the show, and yes, like Mer, her story-lines are mellow-dramatic, but her reactions are pretty proportionate. Well, besides cutting the L-Vat wires. That was dumb, but it constitutes the one genuinely dumb, totally unprofessional, completely irrational thing any of the Grey's women have done over the course of the show.
Now Addision. What's not to love? She likes sex, she's a world class surgeon, and she only really freaks out when a marriage ends or she finds out that she's barren!
On to Bailey, quite possibly the strongest woman on TV. NOt pretty. Doesn't care she's not pretty. She's a working mom and a strict supervisor. WHat better role-model is there on network TV for little girls? COme on NY Times, give me one example I can't refute! I dare you!
I really did think Rory Gilmore would grow up to be a strong woman who was okay with the fact that she wasn't a supermodel. Then she grow up into a painted harlet who lost her virginity to a married man who wasn't even all that interesting and wore tacky overly trendy clothes befitting Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton while attending her classes at Yale. Gone were her cute Gap-looking sweaters, jeans and simple lip gloss. Rory was drinking hard core with her socialite friends at the trendiest night clubs. What was worse was that Rory didn't OWN her new superficial, yuppy status. She wrote scathing social commentaries on the parties she went to with other rich people for Internet blogs and made snide comments to her rich boyfriend about how insufferable his other rich friends were. Rory was a hypocrite who lived with her billionaire boyfriend rent-free like a sugar baby while simultaneously denouncing everyone else for doing similar things. Sandrah Oh's Dr. Yang would definitely be a stronger role-model than a hypocritical twenty-something Ivy harlet. Dr. Yang is what she is. SHe's unapologetically driven. On this week's episode, in fact, she refused to discuss her fiance's whiney wedding problem with him because she realized the intern exam she had to write that day (and the affect it would have on HER career forever) was more important. SHe loves Burke and will marry him, but she is not subservient to him and sets firm boundaries. SHe knows when her stuff is more important. Sure she likes sex a lot, but does that make her oversexed? What exactly does oversexed mean? Christina still has time to kick ass at her medical internship, argue with her mother and hang out with her intern friends, so she can't be THAT oversexed. She's definitely not emotionally needy. She's not a sex addict. So since when does liking sex constitute a character flaw? Is it anti-feminist to like getting laid? Come on, NY times!
Now, Merideth's storylines that involve her various relatives facing their mortality on a bi-weekly basis may be ridiculous, but why is she? She's a girl with a partying past, but she's evolved. She shows women they can screw up while young but atone for that and still make it professionally and contribute to the world doing something they love. SHe also likes sex, but she even talks about her use of protection on the show, and since Grey's began, she's only had one sexual partner. She is not over-sexed. IS she a basket case? No, her story lines are crazy, but she doesn't really over-react to them. IF I were put in mortal danger every sweeps weak, I'd be a bit anxious too.
Now for the beauteous Izzie. Again, likes sex, not addicted. Only had two sexual partners over the course of the show, and yes, like Mer, her story-lines are mellow-dramatic, but her reactions are pretty proportionate. Well, besides cutting the L-Vat wires. That was dumb, but it constitutes the one genuinely dumb, totally unprofessional, completely irrational thing any of the Grey's women have done over the course of the show.
Now Addision. What's not to love? She likes sex, she's a world class surgeon, and she only really freaks out when a marriage ends or she finds out that she's barren!
On to Bailey, quite possibly the strongest woman on TV. NOt pretty. Doesn't care she's not pretty. She's a working mom and a strict supervisor. WHat better role-model is there on network TV for little girls? COme on NY Times, give me one example I can't refute! I dare you!
My Opinions
This blog is devoted to my views and my opinions. IT will deal with everything from gender issues and international politics to what I think about Britney Spears' outfits. It's a social commentary on everything AND Anything I find rant-worthy. Yeah, that's it. Hope you find it good!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)