Mid Island Musings

The Plan

2009-07-19T00:02:00.000-07:00

The answer to the balance question...I know I want to travel, I know I want my Master degree, I want a career that allows me to always be learning, and I want a successful relationship...but I don't know where to start.

Correction: Didn't know

As I was sitting over dinner tonight it came to me. I came up with a base plan that includes travel, my Masters, a career that allows me to learn, involve culture, health, and a successful relationship.I want my Masters but I don't want to do a regular boring thesis. When my mother did her Masters degree she did a project, and to me, that seems like a much more tangible and better contribution to her discipline than another research project that will sit on a dusty shelf. I want that for my Masters degree too.

"The Importance of the Relationship between Cultural Identity and the Natural Environment for the Economic Projects of Canadian NGOs"

Although I think I would change the title, the message still stands. I still want to continue to write about how important it is for Economic Development Projects need to respect the respect the Relationship between Cultural Identity and the Natural Environment. And even though I found it hard to find published material to support my argument I don't want to write an academic paper. I want to do a project based Masters degree.

Since I've moved to Port Alberni and started working for Huu-ay-aht I've been thinking that a cultural adventure business would be a really great tourism business opportunity with a minimum environmental impact and a maximum potential for education.

So...why not make creating a business plan part of the Masters project? I could write about all of the reasons I think that economic development projects need to recognize and respect cultural idendity and the natural environment, include the business plan and all of the reasons it respects the relationship between Nuu-chah-nulth cultural identity, values, and principals and the natural environment of the West Coast of Vancouver Island.

Vision Board

2009-07-18T23:19:00.000-07:00

The week of July 13th to 17th 2009 I attended a workshop at the request of my employer. I had no idea what it was about, turns out it was one of those "personal growth" workshops. On the first day I was thinking "Oh dear God, you're kidding me." But then I watched one of the women sitting near by resisting every work, every activity and thought "I don't want to be that woman". And then I hit something that I didn't realize was still holding me back so much.

From that point on I went through each activity with an open mind and an open heart. The same message was present each day.

Balance. Mental Balance, Emotional Balance, Physical Balance. I could use some balance in my life. It was also about keeping the past out of the present and the future. We worked through the past, learned how to be present in the present, and how to look towards the future with out limitations.

So this entry is about my idea for balancing my future. In creating my vision board (a college of goals) I tried to use the balance model and put goals for myself in the middle

Middle: Balance, Relax, Confidence, Trust your instincts...

And surrounded myself with the things I wanted in my life. There was a quadrant for travel, a quadrant for career and education, a quadrant for my romantic relationships, and a quadrant for health.

Travel took up a full half, and I've decided to let it. Career and education took up a quarter. Relationships and health shared the last quarter, not because they're less of a priority but because I'm farther along in those areas.

So after creating this beautiful board and trying to let myself believe that I can have those things, and am allowed to want those things I started to think "how to I get there"?

How do I get my Masters, travel the world, and maintain a relationship that requires me to stay in Port Alberni?

Suddenly, tonight over dinner I came up with the answer.

Equality - Trusting a Man to Do a Woman's Job

2009-05-11T18:34:00.000-07:00

Lately, I've spent a fair bit of time thinking about and writing about gender roles. During one of these conversations I read something that really got me thinking.

Women have fought for the last 100 years for rights, the right to vote, the right to work, the right to work wherever they want, their reproductive rights, the list goes on and on. However, in the fight for equality, there's been an oversight.

A friend summarized it better than I could.

"I used to read a blog about a young man as an elementary school teacher who met with deep resistance to his existence. Admittedly, it's just a blog and therefore chock full of pure anecdote, but I can't help but wonder just how much women are prepared to "trust" a man in positions that used to be theirs and theirs alone."

While we've been more than happy to be mechanics, doctors, and CEO's, and expect that the traditional holders of these positions will recognize that we're equally competent, she should trust men to be nurses, elementary teachers and stay at home dads.

But, have we?

This article isn't the blog referenced above, but I think it speaks to the same point. In asking for a piece of "men's" territory, are we willing to give them some of ours?

The Mistrusted Male Teacher

Response: Muslim Demographics

2009-05-11T16:06:00.000-07:00

Muslim Demographics, They Call Her Crazy Tracy

I'm too frustrated after watching these videos to write a full response, however, this ties in so closely to the "17 Children" article and their "war". The last sentence in the video "Muslim Demographics" is "This, is a call to arms".

This is a direct reference to Psalm 127, the namesake of the Quiverfull movement.

“As arrows in the hand of a mighty man, so are the children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath a quiver full. They shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.”

"They Call Her Crazy Tracy" is equally frustrating. I see Tracy as representative of the way of thinking (or more accurately, not thinking) that is gaining momentum in Canada and the United States.

The most terrifying part about the Quiverfull movement, the "call to arms" against Muslims through fertility, and the statements from Tracy, is the conviction in their beliefs.

Their unwavering certainty is the strongest weapon in their arsenal.

The other terrifying part is the lack of compassion for those they view as "the other", and that "the other" is the enemy.

These movements are waging a war against people who have no interest in a war. So, how do I, an opening minded liberal thinking woman, who believes more in spirituality than religion, resist their war...and how do you fight back when you have no interest in the fight.

It seems to me, by acknowledging this "war" of theirs they've already won half the battle.

Response - " How to Have 17 Children and Still Love Jesus" - Kate Dixon 2007

2009-05-07T14:12:00.001-07:00

http://bitchmagazine.org/article/multiply-and-conquer

Of all the statements in this article that caught my eye, and believe me, there were many, the one that struck me the most was a quote by Stephanie Coontz.

"This movement gets attention today because we've altered gender roles more in the past 30 years than we did in the previous 3,000 years. As a result, the Quiverfull adherents' absolute certainty about what they're doing strikes a chord, even among people who would never consider living that way."

This quote caught my eye because it did strike a chord. In today's crazy hectic world, where any one can take on any role we can't help but ask "Where do I fit in?"

I find that the overload of opportunities and choices leaves many people staring at a blank page. Where do you even start?

During discussions with friends there have been two key observations that appear.

For Women (observed from women of my generation 18-34)

"What path do I take?"

Many of us were little girls in the 1980's. I find this to be the first decade where pop culture prominently displayed women in successful and powerful careers traditionally held by men. Our moms, many of whom were single, or divorced mom's, were raising a family during this transition. I'd call them the first "supermoms"

Feminism has opened many doors and windows for many women, but with that blessing comes a curse. Because the doors are open there is pressure to go through them and a culture has developed around the "Super Mom"

This women can (apparently) commute to a stressful, full time job, be successful at her job, raise 3 well adjusted kids, keep her husband sexually satisfied, and still have time to bake cookies.

Lets be serious here, we all know that woman doesn't exist. The truth is, many women have a choice to make, have a family or have a career. In my experience the respect for a stay at home Mom has not yet reached the same level of respect for a career woman. It seems as though the people still believe that being a mom isn't "real" work because it doesn't generate income and doesn't' contribute to the economy. Who decided that a paycheck proves that someone is working, or even more absurd, that it proves how hard someone worked?

My personal (and undoubtedly biased) point of view on this is pretty cut and dry. People who have more respect for the working woman than than the stay at home mom are the same people who can only process the world in terms of the tangible, the people who only perceive the world in terms of possessions, paychecks and product.

I call them the victims and the perpetrators of the "Culture of Conspicuous Consumption".

Gender roles may have been altered but the rest of the world hasn't had time to catch up. Thereare still few circumstances where having a career can co-exist harmoniously with raising a family.

So now the pressure comes from both sides. On one side we hear "the doors are open walk through, walk tall and take on the world " and on the other we here "be a mother, be proud to be a mother, take on the world".

It's a confusing message which leaves many women my age floundering for a balance.

I find the Quiverfull movement to be a natural (though very extreme) response. Times of transition leave most people grasping for certainty. A movement like Quiverfull offers unwavering certainty.

For Men (observed in men 18-34)

Nearly every conversation I've had with men on this topic ultimately leads to a single questions. I heard it mostly succinctly from a conversation with John Jack

"What's left [for me]?"

In a world country and culture where women can do anything men can do, what does it mean to be a man?

Response to this article by John Jack on the gender struggle for men to follow

Filling the Post University Void

2009-05-04T14:45:00.000-07:00

It has recently come to my attention that my day to day, and even week to week, activities no longer include in depth discussion of current events, social justice, culture, politics, or the environment...the list goes on and on. While in University discussion and discourse of a variety of topics was just part of the experience. I find now that I am removed from the University environment, I have less access to people willing and ready to discuss complex, and sometimes controversial topics, at a moments notice.

In order to remedy this I have decided on a social experiment. Goal: To test facebook as an effective tool for academic discourse and my ability to engage other post-university students in discussion on their own free will.

This will also test my ability to adapt as I'm admittedly unfamiliar with the rules, etiquette and formats of blogs, forums and discussion boards.

My first step was to send an email to a small group of friends (real friends, not facebook "friends") via facebook explaining my void and my desire to fill it.

Email:

Hi,

I'm writing this message because I've noticed a distinct lack in political, cultural, and current event discourse in my day to day life now that I've left University and entered "Career world".

Although I work in a politicized environment (I work for Huu-ay-aht First Nations, who are involved in the Treaty process) I feel I'm still lacking a platform for discussions that delve deeper in to issues than just a jerk reaction or first impression.

Today, I came across two very interesting, potentially controversial articles. They're not articles that I want to argue for, or against, but rather, articles I want to explore further.

I'm thinking of starting an invitation based group where articles on gender, politics, culture, social justice, environment, current events...etc can be posted for FYI or discussion and to allow interested persons to participate at their leisure.

I am aware of sites like this that already exist, but personally, I find large forums to be overwhelming and over populated. I'm thinking, a smaller, more book club like, group.

The reason I'm hesitant to post articles openly on facebook as a wall post is the number of "friends" who many not understand the article, why it was posted or understand the difference between discussion and argument, nor the etiquette that applies to it.

The goal is to create a virtual discussion group and I would like to avoid an environment that lends itself to personal attacks and a devolution of the topic at hand.

This is why I'd like to create an platform for a smaller group that encourages discourse and discourages conflict for conflict sake.

If you're interested please let me know and I'll send the group invite.

~Crystal

There were two articles that spurred the idea of a virtual discussion group.

Multipy and Conquer: How to have 17 children and still believe in Jesus by Kate Dixon from Bitch Magazine 2007
http://bitchmagazine.org/article/multiply-and-conquer

and

White Privilage: Unpacking the invisible backpack by Peggy McIntosh from Independent School 1990
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html

Reponses to articles, which will hopefully jump start discussions, to follow.

In Response to "There;s our money, and then there's my money"

2009-04-17T13:09:00.000-07:00

In Response to "There's Our Money and Then There's My Money" by Micah Toub from the April 2nd 2009 Globe and Mail http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=72832228374&h=OaSy_&u=ExlEE&ref=nf

Toub's article argues in favor of hidden spending and even hidden bank accounts. I disagree.

(My argument is based on a couple in which both partners are working and does not take in to account the complexities of one partner staying home to care for children.)

I think it's an argument held by the person in the relationship who makes the most money. Whether if husband, the wife, the partner, if you make more, you should get to enjoy it. After all, your hard work earned it.

While I do understand the want, I even go so far as to say need, to enjoy the fruits of your labour, I don't understand the need to lie about it. If someone in the relationship has an problem with a significant gap in income it is their own personal issue and unlikely to be resolved by lying or not lying about disposible income. That issue will ultimately destroy the relationship.

In order for a relationship with an income gap to be successful both parties need to be aware of it, and accepting of it. Agree what's "ours", what needs to be put away in terms of savings (for an emergency, a wedding, a vacation etc) and what's left is yours to do with as you please, and yours to share if you please. Some may even choose to agree on how much to share with their partner who's making less to lessen the inbalance.

If there's a need to lie about your income, a bonus, a raise, then there's a fundamental distrust in the relationship. Anger, resentment and disagreement about a partner's income, or lack there of, is not the condition, it's just the symptom.

Why Sarah Palin is Dangerous for Canada and the Arctic

2008-08-29T12:46:00.000-07:00

Look how liberal the Republican Party is being, they've chosen a female running mate for Old Man McCain. How progressive, they're closing the gender gap, and allowing a new governor in her first term, from a low population state, a chance at the big-times. She's a hockey mom with 5 kids. How special. *puke*

Let's take a closer look and read between the lines.

Prior to her first term as Alaska's governor she was a mayor of a small town of only 8,000-9,000 people. Now I'm all for someone who's capable of a job being given a chance, but that's not why she was chosen. She was chosen because the people he wanted were vetoed for being to controversial.

She was also chosen because as a woman and a mom she will appeal to some of Hilary Clinton's more conservative supporters. She appeals to the people because she lives in a small town, she has 5 kids and one is on his way to Iraq. Big deal. Her sex is really a non issue here, the point is she is very right wing on all the traditional Conservative issues she's supposed to be right wing on. She's for guns and hunting, she's opposed to same sex marrige, and she's pro-life and pro oil. (Personally, I find the pro-guns, pro- life thing a little hypocritical don't you think?)

She was also chosen because of the state she represents. I've watched talk of armed conflict over the arctic and oil exploration go from 2 paragraph articles on page 16 of section D to being discussed on national and international news. Although armed conflict has not shown up of front pages, it is being talked about by political scientists, political analysts and opinion writers. Alaska is the United States door to the Arctic. Having the former governor of Alaska in the Whitehouse keeps the Arctic issue at the fore front of America's media. She has no foreign policy experience and we're going to have her influencing the largest "land" claim dispute since the post World War II?! Not wise.

This woman is for aggressive oil exploration on land and in the Arctic seabed, she's for drilling in Alaska's wildlife refuge, she's just signed a deal with Canada to build a a major oil pipeline. Her influence in Alaska is key to pushing hard on the Arctic issue.

The most concerning part about her nomination is how likely should would be to become president. We've seen what happens with someone who has something to prove gets in to office. Is Canada and the Arctic the next Iraq? You'd think a mother with 5 kids would want to preserve the environment so that her children and grandchildren can enjoy it as well. Perhaps she jsut wants to preserve their ability to buy and fuel a shiny new car and buy cheap ipods.

Let's face it here, John McCain is 72, he could die from the flu, let alone heart attacks and other age related issues. To quote a CBC correspondent "she is just one heart beat away from Presidency"

Not only would she be the first female president, she would be a young and inexperienced. She would have to prove herself over and over again, for being a woman, for being young, and for being inexperienced. Canada is only one heart beat away from armed conflict with the United States, one of the most powerful armed forces in the world, for the Arctic seabed and the North West Passage, because a 44 yr old soccer mom from small town Alaska has something to prove the the world.

Obama was correct is saying the United States can be a better country than it has been the last 8 years, but it won't be better the next 4 with a stale old man that has agreed with George W. Bush 90% of the time and an aggressive inexperienced woman with something to prove.

She was brought in to fill a niche not to bring balance to team. She's there to win over Hilary Clinton's supporters and to focus on the Arctic. McCain is using her for what she represents and not for what she can contribute personally to the administration. She must know that, which only means she'll be over compensating even more at every turn. The myth is that bringing a woman in to office will be lessen the likelihood of a war, war is a man's game, right? In this case, I think she's more likely to cause it. Perhaps I give Washington too much credit in believing that they know all of this and plan to use her as a scapegoat. Someone to blame the conflict on and to say that women should not be in office. But know who knows...

A win for the Republicans on November 4, 2008 is dangerous for Canada. We have water and we have oil and America wants them both. With a Democrat win there's perhaps a 50% chance of armed conflict over the Arctic and it's natural resources. With a Republican win I predict a 80% chance of armed conflict over the Arctic.

There's more at stake here than just Canada and the United States. There's more at stake that oil and water and North American trade. They're both G-8 countries, they're both NATO countries, they're both UN members. Any conflict would not be just a North American conflict, it would be a global conflict.

In Response to Peter Foster's "Corporate Chainsaw Massacre"

2008-07-09T21:24:00.000-07:00

There are always newspapers in the lunch room, and as usual I sifted through until something caught my eye. I'd recently seen Wall.E so when I saw his cute little picture on one of the banners of the front page of the National Post I decided to take a closer look. Now, imagine my surprise when the caption beside this adorable Pixar creation is "This 'evil corporation' theme has gone far enough". And, to top it all off, in big bold letters underneath read "Movie Pariahs". Here's the best part, here's where I really realized what was coming...the article is printed in the financial section.

My first thought is "this is ridiculous!" but, curiosity prevailed and I on FP 19 I find an article titled "Corporate Chainsaw Massacre" written by a Mr. Peter Foster. It's in the National Post, so I'm already prepared for a conservative article, and it's in the financial section of the national post, so I've also prepared myself for a pro industrial development, free trade loving, conservative article. However, I must admit, I was not prepared for the such an intensely negative article about the positive underlying themes of these films.

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=641331

I suggest a full read to comprehend the total hilarity of the article. I'm going to skim over his criticisms of Michael Clayton, There Will Be Blood, You Don't Mess With The Zohan, and Hancock in order to focus on this issues with Wall.E and the concluding statements of his article.

To give you a taste of what is to follow, the quote underneath a picture Wall.E holding a rubik's cube reads "A scene from Wall.E, one of the three summer films that make corporations look feckless and villainous."

I chose to focus on his issues with Wall.E because apparently this film "paints the bleakest picture of the corporation." (And because I loved the movie) Among numerous other things, Peter Foster is offended by the the similarities of the fictional Buy'n'Large and the factual Wal-Mart, and the impression that the corporate CEO has presidential powers. The article oozes with sarcasm when he refers to the "prophecies of level-headed critics of capitalism from Karl Marx through Noam Chomsky to Naomi Klein." And he's a follower of what?, the logic and the level-headed founders and followers of wealth developing system based on infinite growth in a world of finite resources? But, I digress.

After a brief description of the basic story line he makes quick mention of the obese space tourists rediscovering their limbs, each other, and thus, their humanity. It's a nod to the growing obesity epidemic and the western world's addiction to the internet, instant messaging, cell phones and video conferencing.

So, let's recap...the scandalous and anti-North American themes in the movie is...your garbage adds up, big box culture is unsustainable, an environment removed from nature and activity creates obesity and human disconnect, and that capitalism has the potential to spin out of control. I'm confused as to how an educated man could have difficultly understanding why this kind of discourse is so important. Does he live in a world where countries are not experiencing serious waste disposal issues and aren't shipping it to poorer nations? Do the negative effects of big box stores on small communities not happen where he lives? When he looks out his car window does he not see addiction to technology and quick processed foods, lowered activity levels and obesity? Maybe the newspapers he reads don't talk about poverty and food shortages in some nations and the over consumption of others. I guess if I lived in that world too I wouldn't see examples of governments being unable to control the actions of national and international corporations.

I realize the visual images in Wall.E are exaggerated. But, let's face it, this day in age most people need to be hit over the head with a message in order to retain it. I found the over the top exaggerated images and themes to be necessary. Besides, it's not like this is the first time a film has been made with environmentally conscious themes. Does anyone remember Water World? Correct me if I'm wrong but did Water World not lead one to wonder about the extreme consequences of global warming?

The following paragraph is the real treat. I've saved his best for last. Peter Foster's concluding paragraph is as follows.

"If the world is facing a clear and present danger, it is that eco-hysteria and anti-corporate sentiment will lead the political class to impose the kind of draconian, wealth-destroying policies that they hypocritically preach but know will be destructive."

Eco-hysteria, wealthy destroying policies, hypocrites? Eco-hysteria is my favorite. Thank you Peter for that gem. First off, not all environmentalists are hypocrites, nor are they hysterical. They are merely loosing patience with the unwillingness of the majority of North Americans to comprehend the idea of finite resources. Don't get me wrong, I can understand his issue with some environmental policies. Clearly, making it difficult to extract oil from the Arctic ocean floor which will later be burned, compounding the issue that made the Arctic ice free in the first place, would be inconvenient for many wealthy investors. It's not hard to believe that individuals that became wealthy and powerful through current capitalism would be reluctant to change.

Drastic change is a requirement for the future.

I understand that the runaway train we've created cannot be stopped with ease, nor can it be stopped with out consequences. But eventually, the resources will become scarce. There is already talk of armed conflict over the ownership of the Arctic seabed.

This is all a simple case of conflicting logic. Capitalism, as it exists now, requires infinite growth. I'm going to take a shot in the dark here and say that infinite growth is impossible. There fore, adjustments must be made before the runaway train hits the brick wall at full speed. It seems the consequences would be lighter if an effort was made to slow it down. Perhaps then, it will hit the wall at a speed which only crumples a car or two, rather than leave the entire train in a flaming heap twisted metal and few survivors.

Wealth has existed in other systems, and will again. Besides, wealth is really just a cultural creation. What have we really created? We've created a system where a animated film about a robot, that projects political beliefs that conflict with the system that generates "wealth" in the western world, has upset a conservative financial writer so much, that he had to publish his concerns in the National Post.

If films like Wall.E encourage people to discuss even one of the admittedly over exaggerated themes, then maybe it really is a leftist, liberal, environmentalist success ;)

One Blissful Summer Day

2008-07-08T12:28:00.000-07:00

Outside my window is a perfect summer breeze, a few fluffy white clouds and a blue sky. I live near the ocean and you can smell it when the wind changes direction and passes through the window screen to my bedroom. It's the type of day writers write about, but rather than write about it on tidy sheets of legal sized yellow paper, I am writing about it from inside a house, on a lap top on a bed, inside.

Today is the kind of day that asks its participants to do something special with it.

What's strange is, despite the the pull and the urge to do something special with the day, something is missing. I should be excited to wander through my small home town and rediscover it, to take pictures of the water falls in near by parks, to go kayaking down at the beach, to bike ride through the farm roads in the town behind town, but something is missing. On this perfect day, the day that asks for someone to do something special, to drink in the day and place it carefully along with all the special moments you want to dust off and smile fondly about when you're old, is missing someone to share it with.

I often relish in my ability to appreciate the small things, "smell the roses", if you will. A dreary bus ride can be rescued by fingers of sunlight sneaking through the canopy of leaves to land softy among the ferns. A bike ride can come to a complete stop to watch two small fawn tiptoe through tall grass. A short boat ride can seem like hours when you can drag your fingers through the water while contemplating the lives of the small creatures that live below it.

Today is missing someone to share it with. To walk through town, to take long meandering bike ride, to watch the fish while kayaking seems almost selfish. Keeping those moments and memories to myself steals away pieces of the joy they should bring. There's something about watching a smile creep across the face of the person next to you. Watching the beauty and diversity of the world outside their busy day to day bring peace to their eyes. There's an unspeakable bond that passes through two people when they're alone, literally or figuratively, with only the sun, the clouds, the wind, the water, the plants and the animals to keep them company. With all the dreariness of modern life, days like today are needed to remind people of the importance, complexity and infinite miracles that occur around them every second.

The miracle of those moments are almost unbearably intense when you know the person standing next you, holding your hand, sees the wonder as well.