Friday, October 31, 2008

A Guide to My Heart pt. 1

This is a new theme I'm going to introduce to the blog. Sometimes, I realize just how deep my love for something runs and I need to express it. By blogging about it, hopefully I can avoid annoying my friends/co-workers with long, panting, one-sided discussions about these things I love.

So, the inaugural edition to this little guide to my heart will be about... aviator sunglasses on guys!


Yes. I love them! No guy can go wrong with aviator sunglasses! Seriously, find the doppiest-looking guy around, put a pair of these puppies on him and I guarantee you, he would instantly gain several levels of cool. And cool is hot. (That is so not an oxymoron, by the way.)

I usually realize that these guys could be total dirtbags under the glasses, but I still can't help feeling an instant attraction to men wearing aviators. I think it's because they convey a sense of non-chalence and confidence. They're also very classic and kinda mature. The glasses, not the guys, necessarily. Not to mention that men wearing aviators also seem a little bit autoritative (i.e. knowledgeable), since movie cops are always wearing them. All in all, I think it does come down to confidence.

Incidentally, girls also look totally hot/cool in aviators. Not being able to wear aviator sunglasses is probably the only regret I have about choosing to wear my (also totally hot) prescription eyeglasses, instead of lenses.

I realize, of course, that this is an idea that I've constructed in my mind and that not all guys who wear aviator glasses are confident, outgoing, and fun. They just have a fashion sense that corresponds to my tastes and speaks to my constructed ideas of what makes a man attractive and what his physicality says about his personality. But that doesn't mean that I shouldn't droolingly check out guys wearing them. Especially if it's my boyfriend, Kanye West. <3

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

I'm glad I don't live in the US

Seriously, this is ridiculous:


(via feministing)

Anti-choice policies hurt women all over the world.

To digress slightly from the video, whenever I'm speaking with someone who is pro-life about reproductive rights, I find that they have the false idea that the only question is that of the fetus' life. What most of these people don't get is that legalized abortions aren't simply a means for women to have access to abortions. Women have been inducing miscarriages artificially for centuries. There are all kinds of methods to do this, from ingesting certain herbs (supposedly) to inserting tree bark into one's uterus in order for an infection to develop and induce a miscarriage. A lot of these methods are incredibly dangerous to women's health. Before abortions were made legal, hospitals had entire wards just for women suffering from botched abortion attempts! In spite of these dangers, women wanted the choice. They wanted to control their own reproductive health and their bodies. They needed the option. What legalized abortion does is provide women with access to safe abortions. Yes, it's about protecting women's lives. As in, the lives of actual living people who actively contribute to society.

It's mind-boggling that women's basic rights to body agency and safe medical practices are still being challenged. Wake up, US. If you pass these legislations, you'll have undone years of progress in terms of women's rights. You are undoing and devaluing that progress every time you place women's rights below the fetus' rights in terms of importance. Women are the persons. Women's rights issues are human rights issues and nothing less.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Liz, we need to have a talk.

So, I work at Liz Claiborne. Now, Liz sounds like a really fancy place, and a lot of people think it is. They are wrong. We do have nice business outfits, of course, but we also have some seriously messed-up shit. Frog-clasp jean jackets anyone? Red-and-white-striped sweater-coats?

Needless to say, I wasn't particularly impressed with most of the stock from the start. I'm 19, of course I wasn't impressed. However, the last couple of shipments have been surprisingly good. We had lovely blouses, nice trouser-pants, a few cute business dresses, adorable empire-waisted sweaters, cable-knit sweaters, cropped lamb-skin leather jackets. And in lovely navies, purples, whites, browns, blacks, camels and greys. In short, good stuff. This gave me real hope that Liz Claiborne was pulling itself out of its fashion rut and getting serious about this whole clothing thing. Creating clothes that women under 70 want to wear (although, I have seen some very well-dressed septegenerians). My dismay at the most recent shipment should then be understandable, at least to all other Liz Claiborne employees.

Seriously, what the hell, Liz? What were you thinking? This is, undoubtedly, the worst batch I've had the (dis)pleasure to receive and process since I started working for the company. Silver-polka-dot sweaters? Oversized white stitching on club-collar, engine-red cotton shirts? Really? It's been three weeks since the last shipment (1 week longer than usual) and this is the best you could come up with? It's like you raided Mrs. Claus' closet and only came up with the stuff she stashed in the back, out of sight, because it looks like something her mother-in-law would wear. And what the hell's up with pulling out the Christmas colours and decorations already? It's not even November yet. I understand a few early Christmas gifts going on sale already, but does the new collection really have to look like a gingerbread house? Also, I feel our customers all deserve a formal letter of apology for that black polyester shapeless dress thing with the hideous line of stitching down the front from the last shipment selling at $119,99Cnd. Not cool.

This is serious, Liz. With the economy in the state it's in, right now is not the time to get lazy and pull shit like this out of your ass. People are not going to shell out the big bucks unless it's really worth it and this latest collection is just not going to cut it. I like you, Liz, I really do. I mean, you sign my paycheques and all. And you just extended my staff discount to all the brands you own (thankyouthankyouthankyou!). I'll forgive you this one shipment. We all have our bad days (or weeks). But please, no more silver polka-dots!

Saturday, October 18, 2008

The Princess and The Frog


So, I just found out that there's finally a release date for Disney's upcoming movie The Princess and The Frog! DECEMBER 25, 2009! This is exciting shit!

The movie's website even has a short little trailer, which made me chuckle giddily. I'm ecstatic about this release, because not only is this movie going to be a total nostalgia-trip for me when it comes out (I was raised on Disney princesses, dammit!), but it'll actually be the first Disney Princess movie to feature a black princess. Now, I admit that this love of mine for Disney princesses is sometimes difficult to reconcile with my feminism, because Disney has a history of perpetuating some sexist shit through the princess movies (not to mention all the heteronormativity and stereotypical gender-roles), but the more recent movies, like Mulan and Aladdin, were pretty good in terms of having strong female leads, so I really hope Tiana continues that tradition. Also, it's 2D! Animation has come a long way since The Little Mermaid, but I do miss good ol' 2D animation sometimes. And 20s jazz! It all seems like such an epic combination!

However, a few details seem to have changed since I last looked for info on this movie. For starters, the title's been changed from The Frog Princess to The Princess and The Frog. Also, Princess Tiana was originally Maddy, a chambermaid. This was more in keeping with the original story, in which the princess rejects the frog prince, whereas her chambermaid sees beyond his froggishness and lands herself a beautiful, rich husband as a result of her not being shallow (every girl's dream, right? You don't wanna be kissing amphibians for nothing, after all). In this version, Tiana is rich. She also looks less badass (and, might I add, a little more white) than her original jazzy version. According to Wikipedia, there was controversy over the initial character info, because Maddy was perceived as a "lower-class black-name" and chambermaid is not a Disney Princess occupation. I'm kind of disappointed with this. After all, we've had plenty of sheltered princesses in the past. A lower-class working girl is a heroine I can really get behind, but that's just me.

Still, the trailer gives me renewed hope for this movie. I'll be well into my 20th year when this comes out, but that's definitely not going to stop me from seeing it!

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Quebec's Atheist-Headed Bloc Quebecois And The Catholic Vote

(This is a repost of a topic I started on the Friendly Atheist forum)

I read an interesting article this week in Maclean's (a Canadian political magazine) talking about the overwhelming Catholic Quebecois support for the province's sovereigntist party, the Bloc Québécois, despite the fact that the Bloc's leader, Gilles Duceppe, is a pro-choice, pro-eutanasia, pro-gay rights atheist, all positions (atheist translates into the party's secularist position) also espoused by the party.

From the article "Ungodly Union":

Notions to the contrary aside, Talin says, religion is alive, well, and politically active in Quebec. Even stranger: despite the Conservatives' family-oriented platform designed to attract churchgoing folk, it's the Bloc Québécois — a left-wing party whose leader is a former Communist and avowed pro-choice atheist who often rails against the Church's encroachment in public affairs — that does surprisingly well with the faithful.

In 2000, Talin concluded, roughly 50 per cent of Quebec's practising Catholics voted for the Bloc. Though much has changed in eight years, notably the formation of the Conservative party and its recognition of la nation Québécoise, that support has remained relatively stable.

What I find interesting, having read so many American secularists' concerns that religion sometimes becomes the number one issue in an election, is that the Quebecois are placing their national identity and separatist views on a much higher level than their religious views.

I think that, from a historian's point of view, this is somewhat explainable. The period between 1945 and 1959 in Quebecois history is known as la Grande Noirceur, the Great Darkness or Dark Ages, during which Quebec's Prime Minister Maurice Duplessis strongly opposed education and industrial development. The Catholic Church had a real vice-grip on public life at this point, controlling everything from education and hospitals to the printing press and what was deemed "acceptable" in the arts. In the 1960s, a new intellectual and cultural movement emerged in Quebec society. It is called la Revolution tranquille, the Quiet Revolution. It is a rejection of the traditional values, mainly through literary art, but also in the media, the political institutions, education, women's rights, etc. It is during this period that Quebecois society became heavily secularized and religion was ejected from public institutions.

However, Catholisism is in no way unimportant to the Quebecois society today and the separatist movement has been on the decline recently. In fact, in their latest election platform, the Bloc Québécois don't mention sovereignty as a current political issue. The Conservatives have been making headway into Quebec, traditionally a Bloc and Liberals stronghold, in this election, but the Bloc is still relevant to the Quebecois, despite recent criticisms stating the contrary.

Anyways, I just thought this would be interesting to share and I wanted to write down my thoughts on it since the Great Darkness and Quiet Revolution periods have always fascinated me. If you ever get the chance, do read some novels from that period - they are well worth it. One of the best (I should know; I wrote my Extended Essay thesis on it) is A Season in the Life of Emmanuel by Marie-Claire Blais. Good stuff and a text that really made me reflect critically on religion in my life during the period when I affirmed my atheism and feminism.