Author: Lindsay Richardson

Categories
Opinions

Editors go head-to-head on today’s head-to-toe looks

Today’s fashion allows for more flexibility and provides a better means for self-expression

By Marco Saveriano

Think about the outfit you’re wearing right now. I bet you hardly thought twice about what you put on this morning. Now imagine this was 50 or so years ago. Do you think you’d still be able to wear that outfit? Probably not.

Take a look back at the trends of the past: men wore suits, women wore skirts and dresses. Everybody always looked prim and proper, like they came straight out of a catalogue. If you’ve seen any period film, you know that it’s true.

There’s nothing wrong with wanting to look polished all the time; if anything, their dedication is something to be admired but it now comes off as rigid. These looks left no room for imagination or individuality. Nowadays, we’re able to do so much more with our clothing than we ever could before.

Women could never pull off some of the revealing outfits they wear today back in the ’20s or ’30s, and men who wore skinny jeans would probably have been ridiculed. But now, we hardly even bat an eye when we see somebody walking down the street wearing a strange or quirky outfit because that’s what is normal for us. A man wearing heels and leggings? Just a regular day in downtown Montreal. A girl wearing a crop top and cut off shorts? Looks like summer is coming!

Fashion has become a way for us to express our individual styles.  We’re all different, and our clothes reflect that. We’re able to be ourselves. We don’t need to always look like we stepped out of a movie — though it doesn’t hurt every once in a while.

In today’s society, we’re more or less free to dress however we want. If you have an off day, what the hell, why not wear sweatpants and a t-shirt? If you feel like dressing up, throw on a pair of heels or a shirt and tie, and hit the town. Some people seem to put no effort into their looks, but if that’s how they like it, then who are we to judge them?

We have so many options, and that means we can have fun with what we wear. Each season brings new trends that we can shape to suit our style. We can reinvent ourselves as often as we want. It would’ve been pretty hard to do that during a time when everybody basically looked exactly the same as each other. When you wanted to break free from the norm back then, you became an outcast. That’s not to say that doesn’t happen anymore, but it definitely takes a lot more than a woman wearing a pair of pants to cause a full-on controversy.

The golden years may have brought a touch of refined glamour that will always be an inspiration to the fashion world. We’ll never forget the classic style icons like Audrey Hepburn or Marilyn Monroe, but it’s time for an update. Who has the time to look that put together every day?

Our generation, reliant on label-worship and reviving old trends, is stuck in a sartorial slump

By Lindsay Richardson

“Think about the outfit you’re wearing right now. I bet you hardly thought twice about what you put on this morning.”

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a brief summary of the fundamental issue with the way we dress today: we’re too damn nonchalant and generally a little lazy.

The idea of dressing “casually” is really just a euphemism. I am struck with a deep pity for Generation Y: have I become too judgemental, or have we, as a society, become perpetually sloppy?

Yes, the fashion of the “golden age” comes off as significantly more rigid than what we see on the daily in 2014. However, the biggest difference between modern “fashion” and its sartorial counterparts of the past is the time-worn emphasis on quality.

Yes, people dressed similarly back in the ‘50s and ‘60s, but this was due to the fact that supply was rather limited. It was normal to own only a standard set of clothing: blouses, skirts, slacks, sturdy shoes, etc. A limited wardrobe, absolutely,  but one that usually upheld a standard of quality that is hard to find in our modern “made in China” retail environments. What distinguished people from one another at the time, what defined their true creativity, was the well-honed ability to put themselves together in creative ways, despite their  limited options.

Style, real style, is the ability to work with what you have.

Today, we are fashion and luxury gluttons. More is more. There is no shortage of options or “trends” to experiment with, and our clothes are expected to speak for us. Designers reign supreme, and head to toe labels are what constitute, to some, a regular “everyday” outfit.

Labels don’t speak to anything but the size of your stock portfolio or your line of credit, yet they are continuously mistaken to be the epitome of elegance and status. Frankly, the standard female uniform in winter—Rudsak or Canada Goose coat, Pajar boots, Michael Kors or Longchamp purse— is redundant and tacky.

It’s funny, for a generation that asserts their “uniqueness” and that takes pride in their ability to express themselves through clothing, I’m seeing large groups of people looking very much alike.

Also, unlike the ‘50s and ‘60s, it is seemingly much harder to implement new and exciting trends today. Millennials thrive off of this concept of “reviving” or “reinventing” old style and patterns of dressing. Think along the lines of “nouveau grunge,” the rebirth of shoulder pads, and the second wave of plastic neck chokers. Its amazing how we, as a society, think we have such a definitive wardrobe when we are essentially recycling old ideas and passing them off as our own.

People are quick to cite Marilyn and Audrey as their style icons, yet the way they dressed and carried themselves has little to no resonance now. We use words like “distressed” and “carefree” to justify the fact that we are willing to go out in ruined or ill-fitting clothes. The idea of investing time and attention to the way we look is slowly slipping. Classiness (as conveyed by clothing) is a seriously underrated virtue.

Categories
Opinions

A big red lipstick stain on television’s reputation

Photo by jamelah, Flickr

A naked face, pale and unassuming, is a vulnerable face. As a media figure, the face that is turned out to the world should be one that commands attention and respect, one that exudes self-assuredness.

Red lipstick has been subject to frequent controversy over its “mixed messages.” Photo by jamelah, Flickr

By swivelling open a tube of deep red lipstick, everyday women believe that they’ve opened themselves up to passion, channeled an innate sexuality, and will radiate both confidence and personal conviction.

When you think about it, red lipstick is an aesthetic choice that holds numerous perceived “benefits” to those who choose to wear it.

However, according to the BBC, it is a colour that is too scandalous to be used in their regular daytime programming, one that Jezebel.com comically refers to it as the “serial murderer of youthful innocence.”

In an attempt to filter and acknowledge the influence of the media on young children, the network issued new wardrobe guidelines that prohibits female hosts on youth-oriented programs from wearing red lipstick. BBC wants only positive, not oversexualized, role models representing them.

“We know that a lot of young girls will look at how our presenters are dressed, and no they shouldn’t look too sexy,” said BBC executive editor Melissa Hardinge, as reported by the Daily Mail.

No one wants toddlers traipsing around with red lipstick smeared all over their innocent little faces. But I am consistently impressed and confused at the public uproar about this colour. What’s the big deal? Red is just a colour, a happy colour that makes people feel good.

It’s 2014, is makeup really supposed to hold any deep significance anymore? Do the negative associations about red lips have any ground in today’s society?

On its own, the colour red is undeniably evocative. Studies have shown that exposure to it stimulates the senses, boosts physical energy, and can even increase heart rate and
adrenaline. Some East Asian cultures even consider it to be good luck, or the colour of purity. Its associations are resoundingly positive and uplifting.

But it’s the close relationship to sex that is still off-putting to some. At one point in time, the use of lipstick was condemned. The Catholic Church compared it to satanic worship, and associated it with marginalized groups like prostitutes and the lower class.

It would explain why, in my own experience wearing it, I have had negative reactions. One elderly woman in particular hissed at her friend while walking by that “only hussies wear that colour.” The remark demonstrated that, absurdly enough, some people still cannot divide the colour from its implications.

The term “oversexualized” should be used to define actions more so than appearances. How can a colour alone accurately represent a woman’s personality or agenda? And how come we get worked up about its influence on the public when there hasn’t been any evidence of a negative influence?

Rich lipstick today can connote strength, power and luxury. However, it could just be worn with the intent of experimenting and looking good. Women don’t necessarily wear lipstick to cause a stir — it’s these unjustified assumptions about appearances that cause trouble.

Given its history and reception, it would be easy to assume that rouge is reserved for “hussies” or “harlots.”

But hold your head high, and coyly blow a kiss to those passing judgement, because ladies wear red lipstick too.

 

Categories
Student Life

Let your flow go

Graphic by Jenny Kwan

It seems that modern day menstruating feminists have an agenda: painting the town red

Graphic by Jenny Kwan

This week, IX Daily posted an exposé debunking the feminist concept of “free bleeding,” complete with pictures and tweets from angry women who are supposedly tired of hiding their monthly cycle from the public, primarily male, gaze.

“Free bleeding” implies that a woman abstains from using any kind of sanitary product during their period—no pads, tampons, or extra absorbent underwear. Menstrual blood, according to feminists, is meant to flow freely from the body and onto thighs, clothing or furniture.

Skeptical Internet audiences claimed that the concept was a hoax, only brought to light by a user from the website 4chan.org, attempting to give female activists a bad name. However, the concept is very real, and not entirely new.

Free bleeding has been subject to both controversy and intense discussion online since the early 2000s.The blog “Feministing” was among one of the first online forums to discuss the concept, which they claim is “more of a mindset than it is an action.”

In 2012, photographer Emma Arvida Bystrom published a series of photos on Vice.com entitled “There Will be Blood,” depicting women doing everyday, mundane things with menstrual blood fully visible, staining their clothes and freely running down their legs. The photos were meant to provoke thought and discussion about what is consistently considered to be “taboo.” This concept of menstrual activism, also known as menstrual anarchy or radical menstruation, aims to discuss and expose periods in a way that isn’t fetishized or highly stigmatized.

The feminist argument stands that throughout history, men have manipulated woman to be ashamed of their bodies and all of the natural, inherent, “empowering” feminine functions they perform. Today, the options and resources to “control” or “hide” menstruation are endless, and it is essentially the rejection of this control that inspires a woman to assert herself and experiment with her period.

More radical, outspoken women have taken to Twitter to express the belief that tampons are actually a patriarchal innovation imposed on women by societal norms, and using them is perpetuating a cycle of “oppression” and “self-rape.” The concept of allowing oneself to bleed freely, while daunting, is considered a means of social and sexual expression, a means to expose the concept of “period shaming,” normalize the sight of menstrual blood, while rejecting male control.

Activists consider it to also be an eco and wallet-friendly alternative to using tampons and pads. Others argue that free bleeding reduces a woman’s risk of suffering from side effects related to sanitary products, like toxic shock syndrome, a severe, potentially fatal blood infection that can be contracted by leaving a tampon in for too long.

To many woman, using sanitary products is a hygienic, considerate method to deal with the so-called “crimson wave.”

“[Time] has given us humans the advanced technological know-how to invent specific products to make our monthly easier to manage, in a more clean and discreet manner,” said columnist Adora Bull in a free bleeding rebuttal published through Modern Women Digest.

However, reactions from the public have been mixed. Female bloggers and their audience have either praised the concept, or denied its credibility and practicality.

 

Sources:

http://modernwomandigest.com/disturbing-new-feminist-trend-free-bleeding/

http://community.feministing.com/2012/08/27/letting-ourselves-bleed/

http://www.ixdaily.com/the-grind/tampons-are-form-rape-solution-freebleeding

Categories
Opinions

Weird baby names: into the North West territory

Photo by Flickr user Green333

In recognition of Canadian singer Lights’ firstborn child being introduced via social media with the obscure (and unjustifiable) name Rocket Wild Bokan, I’ve decided to give my future son or daughter the name Whipna Choba Dog.

Photo by Flickr user Green333

I mean, why the hell not? It means “that’s cool” in Simlish. Besides, I’m just so avant garde and desperately want to join the ranks of countless other people who don’t realize how stupid their “modern” kids’ names sound.

There is no real collection of words to encompass how I feel about this subject. And apparently, there is no collection of words too obscure to mark down in permanent ink on a birth certificate.

This so called “trend” seems to have expanded gradually over the decades. The simple, concise names of the 1950’s, like “Robert” and “Jane” were more or less obliterated when musician Frank Zappa introduced his unconventionally named children: Dweezil, Ahmet, Moon Unit, and Diva Thin Muffin… I know.

Unconventional is really just a euphemism for idiotic — a diplomatic way of passing a very obvious judgement on a parents’ choice.

Zappa made way for the millennials, the contemporary group of offspring whose names and phone numbers, in some cases, very well resemble each other. Off they traipse to school: Gwen Stefani’s son Zuma Nesta Rock, Penn Jillette’s daughter Moxie Crimefighter, Pharrell’s pride and joy, Rocket Man, and Nicolas Cage’s son Kal-El. As they come and go, parents of decades past scratch their heads and collectively sigh in resignation.

This is a generation of parents whose moronic actions influenced government officials in Sonora, Mexico, to make it illegal to call your child “Facebook” or “Panties.” But why on God’s green Earth would you even attempt to give your kid a name like that?

I’ll tell you why: naming your child something unintelligible is an act of narcissism.

When a child is born, they’re too small and underdeveloped to express any future interests or definitive personality traits. Parents can’t feasibly pick a name for their baby based on what it likes or who it’s going to become. It is a decision fully rooted in the parents’ interests, or the parents’ need to differentiate themselves from other people. By proxy, the children are affected. It almost seems that a parents’ intellect and cultural savvy is somehow supposed to be represented in the name they choose for their child. Or they feel this undeniable need to be contrary to social norms and traditions.

The unfortunate fact is, when you name your child, you are inherently giving them a standard to live up to. A nonconforming name should, by default, breed a nonconformist, right? Wrong.

How limiting is it to be raised and ridiculed in the shadow of your own name? In all honesty, would you expect someone like Bob Geldof’s daughter, Little Pixie, to grow up and be anything other than a tattooed socialite and angsty party girl? I’m sorry, but that doesn’t strike me as a name that would get anywhere near vocational training or medical school applications.

I would honestly love to see a behavioural study done on children with bizarre monikers. Really, are they raised with an inherent sense of entitlement because they feel that they’re completely unlike everyone else? Or are they overshadowed, and saddened by the fact that no one can accurately pronounce or spell “Espn” or “Shoog?”

In the end, many modern families will argue that if their child is nourished and well loved, what does his or her name really matter?

Indeed, I’m sure that little Toilet Seat Fender Cactus will live a very happy life. He definitely will grow up to pursue a successful career as an investment banker.

Categories
Opinions

Short haired women refuse to be short-sighted

I wore long hair like an ill-fitting hat — it just sat there, and despite being at the height of fashion, it never really suited me.

When I cut my hair in the first few hours of 2014, it was paired with a decision to cut the crap from my life. A complete departure from who I was, it was the only time that an exterior change accurately mirrored an interior one. Unless you’ve cut your hair short, you won’t understand what it’s like to shed inhibitions and feel completely free.

However, these feelings are lost on scores of men. Evidenced by an infuriating and damning article published on the website Return of Kings titled “Girls with Short Hair are Damaged,” that claims “short hair is a near-guarantee that a girl will be more abrasive, more masculine, and more deranged.”

In other words, we can add short hair to the list of things that men think they know/understand, and have a right to comment on.

“Just because you have enough left-over attractiveness to remain bangable after cutting off your hair doesn’t mean you wouldn’t look better with it back on,” the article reads, engaging in the almost ritualistic practice of shaming women based on their appearance.

While the anonymous author fleshes what is essentially an extreme, but arbitrary opinion, it needles right into a fear that many women are plagued by: the fear of being undesired. Ironically, it’s the very same fear that kept me from cutting my hair months ago.

But guess what? The hair came off, and now the gloves are coming off too. Allow me to lay it on the line for all those people who are adamantly and ignorantly anti-pixie cut.

Women don’t base all of their aesthetic decisions on a man’s approval, especially when those men are stunted, presumptuous, and have complexes about traditional gender roles. They’re perpetrating this closed-minded drivel by telling their wives and girlfriends to keep their hair long, and by writing articles like the one mentioned above.

Men think that cutting hair will impact a woman’s desirability. We’re not living in Biblical times, where hair is the ultimate source of power. Honestly though, if a short haircut is what will maintain a distance between these sexist morons and me, then so be it. Pass the scissors over here.

The notion that the amount of love and affection a woman deserves is directly proportional to the length of her hair is absurd. The idea that women with a shorter crop are “masculine” and unsuitable to date because they’re “damaged” is enraging.

Femininity is not relative to the length of a woman’s hair. Femininity, while considered to be innate, is actually a social construction. We have preconceived ideas of how a woman should present herself aesthetically, socially, and sexually.

Men say they want a woman who is confident, self-assured, and “low maintenance.” Men also expect women to look a particular way or else they’re threatened with a life of loneliness and rejection. Short haired women may seem vulnerable, but they have a hell of a personality and confidence that rivals a man’s. Maybe that’s where the fear lies.

Ideally, the categorical depiction of “femininity” would be expanded. Its existence is what encourages men to criticize and pass judgement on the choices that women make regarding their appearance, especially when those choices subvert the norm.

In the end, looks are paramount, most people are superficial, the world turns and my words of frustration won’t don’t change much in the day to day. All I can do is revel in my short-haired independence, and be thankful that I’m not damn short-sighted.

 

 

Categories
Student Life

Frozen fashion: how to dress for Montreal’s electro scene

Photo by Keith Race

Every January, frostbitten ears await the first sounds — usually a combination of enthusiastic cheering and rousing electro-pop beats — that signify the return of Igloofest at the Old Port’s Quai Jacques-Cartier. However, there’s also something to be said about the distinct rustle of old polyester.

Photo by Keith Race

Entering its eighth year of production, Igloofest has become an event that draws not only music and culture enthusiasts but the sartorially-savvy as well. Festival-goers have learned to prepare for the city’s inclement weather and sub-zero temperatures in fun, creative ways. When cold, bundled-up bodies start to fill the performance space, there is never a shortage of either colour or personality.

Unlike its summer counterpart Piknik Electronik, those attending the winter event have to take their wardrobe into careful consideration. Factors like warmth and the ability to move around are undeniably important, which would explain the prevalence of the onesie, which has become one of the fashion cornerstones of Igloofest.

The onesies have seen better days as far back as the ‘70s and the ‘80s, when they were highly popular sportswear pieces. As the festival approaches, thrift and novelty stores are flooded by people eager to hunt down the castoffs, fresh out of the cedar closet and smelling like mothballs. The neon colour combinations, though outdated and garish by today’s standards, are exactly what make them appealing for this event. In fact, the uglier and flashier, the better. An all expenses paid tropical vacation is up for grabs in a contest for the ugliest one-piece, hosted by the event sponsors. Eccentrically-costumed partiers are photographed, and the public votes on the best of the worst through social media. However, that’s only the tip of the iceberg.

Also spotted among the crowds were morphsuits in every imaginable colour. For those not familiar with the concept, just picture those spandex American Apparel leggings stretched over a person’s entire body, sometimes layered with necklaces and sunglasses. Other people channelled Macklemore by strutting onto the Quai in floor length fur coats.

Also common this year were one-piece animal jumpers, known to some as “Kigurumi,” costumes that originated in Japan. The whimsical, hooded outfits are also practical, since they zip up easily over winter jackets or heavy sweaters.

The more conservative of the crowed donned the festival-sanctioned, pompom-topped Igloofest toques that are sold as souvenirs. The

variety of colours, textures, and characters are what have helped shape the event and make it a certified draw for tourists passing through.

“Even if you don’t like the music, you can just have a drink and people watch,” said Jennifer Glover-Drolet, a first-time attendee whose friends trailed closely behind, wearing matching penguin costumes. “Your eye can’t settle on just one place or person.”

Most people can agree that it takes quite a bit of chutzpah to dress up in flamboyant getups, but while you’re tracking your feet through the sleet and slush, you may as well entertain others at the same time.

So, in the end, even if music is a force that can unify and warm the masses, there’s nothing hotter than the unmistakable ensembles spotted at this frigid winter gathering.

Photos by Keith Race

Categories
Opinions

Cat got your tongue: Responding to street harassment

Photo by Flickr user Ke7dbx
Photo by Flickr user Ke7dbx

A man in Philadelphia has been notoriously dubbed “the Swiss Cheese Pervert” after pulling up next to unsuspecting women on the street, masturbating with a slice of Swiss cheese, and trying to solicit sex in exchange for money.

In response, women seem to have run scared, (figuratively) boarded up their windows, and kept their children inside. Men have taken to social media to make light of the situation and laugh it off. Enter jokes about “Philadelphia” brand cream cheese and suddenly violation is absolutely hilarious.

So while men like the Swiss Cheese Pervert are at large, getting off on exposing themselves and harassing women, it begs the question: where has everyone else hidden their balls?

This article is calling for a shift in mentality: the population needs to stop believing that this is a natural or normal social encounter.

The previous example is obviously a sensational one, but women are indirectly violated by comments and unwanted stares every day. Though there is no definite way to stop street harassment from happening, the person on the receiving end should feel confident enough to speak up and make a fuss when being publically objectified.

At the very least, the act of shutting down unwanted advances is self-affirming and cathartic. Keeping silent, walking away, and internalizing the frustration is, in most cases, the wrong thing to do. It perpetuates the belief that women’s bodies are merely a source of entertainment for men, and that they have the right to freely comment on or criticize them.

“[Silence] provides validation for any non-consensual sexual interaction, so I think it’s very important for people to call that stuff out,” said Julie Michaud, administrative coordinator at Concordia’s Centre for Gender Advocacy.

“It’s not OK, it’s not cute, it’s not flirtatious… it’s aggressive and threatening,” she said.

The intent of this piece is by no means to discriminate or victim-blame, but to draw attention to the fact that scores of people disregard these transgressions and pass them off as a “necessary evil” that complements urban living.

It is understandably an emotionally-trying and challenging situation for a woman to be in, and it’s absolutely ridiculous that they are faced with these encounters to begin with. Not everyone can harness the confidence and the cojones to shoot down someone infringing on personal boundaries. Besides, safety is always paramount; no one would expect a woman to call out a gang of guys past midnight on a deserted street.

However, predators will take advantage of the situation if they feel that someone is easily intimidated, so under the right circumstances, just yelling out “stop” or another expletive of choice provides a great feeling of release and satisfaction, and also makes the harasser more obvious to the public eye.

The onus is not only on women to speak up. Men share an equal responsibility.

“The thing that is most powerful is for men to call it out, because those behaviours are often encouraged and read as normal in a male social situations,” Michaud said.

Unfortunately, they can’t always be counted upon to do so. When there is a social norm in place, like that concerning street harassment, people adapt to it and are less likely to take a stand.

Ultimately, women should be able to stand up and tell perverts where to stick it (a fridge, in the case of the Swiss Cheese Pervert) and feel good about doing so. Though an outward, societal change is ideal, we can only work on personally developing an inner strength to help deal with the “macho” nonsense.

Categories
Student Life

Make do and mend: falling in love with the DIY trend

Photo by Mara Richardson

In a society dominated by a desire for immediacy and a reliance on ready-made products, it is surprising that large groups of men and women are taking the time to adopt a resourceful and creative lifestyle through DIY, (“Do it yourself”), projects.

Photo by Mara Richardson

What was once considered by cool kids to be a thrifty, last-resort, or “poor” way of living has now resurfaced as an undeniable cache in the domains of fashion, art, and home decor.

Wikipedia defines DIY as “a method of building, modifying, or repairing something without the aid of experts or professionals,” the opposite of the “easy way out.” Successfully completing a project usually requires time and a well-stocked supply closet.

The term, put into common use in the 1950s, encompasses every possible medium: clothing, furniture, art, even cooking. For some modern DIYers, the passion transcended childhood, when machines like “The Bedazzler” made it easy to transform drab, run-of-the-mill department store clothing into unique, wearable pieces of art. Taking on these types of projects allows people to customize and personalize everyday items, and gives them the opportunity to add sentimental value to items that are worth nothing monetarily.

However, when most products are readily available in-store or online, the fundamental question is: why DIY? What is it about labour-intensive, old-timey arts and crafts projects that attract such a diverse crowd of people?

“It is the thrill of creating, experimenting and designing that I enjoy the most when I DIY,” said Mara Richardson, a specialty blogger at Wise Women Montreal and owner of Cherry on Top Designs, a company that makes custom decor items for children’s rooms.

“I think it is becoming so popular due to the fact a lot of people are on a budget,” explained Richardson. “So whether you find a treasure on the side of the road, recycle something you already own or buy something second-hand, you have the upper hand to creating something all your own.”

Photo by Mara Richardson

Creating DIY goods is a cost-effective way to decorate your home, a subtle way to reject consumerism and the mass consumption of everyday products. At any given time, there are items sitting in thrift shops, flea markets, or around the home that require a little TLC and will cost pennies to transform. It is a sustainable way of life, since items are essentially being recycled and repurposed instead of being thrown out.

Many DIYers appreciate the restorative and transformative value of their pieces. Aside from the strong sense of community and connection with other crafters, there is an undeniable allure in owning something that is unique. The positive mental effects of completing a project are what make it such a fulfilling hobby.It can allow any given person the opportunity to use both the hands and the brain, and deepens one’s appreciation for the things that we own, and the tools that allow us to transform them.

DIYers also adopt perhaps one of the most important qualities a person can have: the courage to screw up.

“It is both material and mental satisfaction owning something that you created from start to finish, a lot of times overcoming obstacles throughout that were unexpected, and surpassing them,” said Richardson.

Categories
Opinions

Sorry PETA, it’s not me, it’s you: a break-up letter

Just before we rang in the year 2014, I ended one of the longest, most significant relationships of my life.

After six years of dedicated vegetarianism, and six years of figurative partnership with you, the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), I realized that I had enough strength in my beliefs and convictions to not continue supporting what is ultimately an abusive, extremist animal-rights group.

At first, the relationship seemed to be a positive one. It was supportive, encouraging, and enlightening. PETA had a way of instilling purpose into its youngest followers; fuelling my newfound passion for justice and animal conservation,

You provided all of the educational tools needed to help make “ethical” decisions regarding both diet and way of life. You sent stickers, pamphlets, testimonials, and posted videos and photos on your web page. I proudly became a “PETA person”—my locker was decorated with posters and animal rights quotes, and I roamed the hallways repeating to myself, “I am not a nugget; animals are friends, not food.”

However, it took a few years before the realization hit that I didn’t have an ally in PETA. As a group, you are cynical, judgemental, negative, and at times, downright vile. Over the years, I mistook your obvious rage for “passion”— your animal rights crusaders are not happy, peaceful people.

There is always an undercurrent of anger and condescension running amongst many of you, and your efforts to preserve animal life show little to no respect for human life.

The warning signs came when watching your documentary “I Am an Animal,” where CEO Ingrid E. Newkirk revealed that, postmortem, she wanted her skin used to make leather goods and her eyes mailed anonymously to government offices so they know that animal rights workers are “always watching.”

Then there were your public demonstrations—performance artists being force fed and injected in store windows to shed light on animal testing, pregnant women put in cages to ban the use of gestation crates, or throwing paint on runway models during haute couture shows to protest the fur trade.

There are also the photos posted online. Every time I’d sit down for breakfast, there would be a new image to feast on: cats with their heads sawed open, newborn piglets lying on a dirty floor. I prefer coffee with my meals, not gore. It is all just so unnecessary and counteractive to the cause.

It’s understood that PETA uses these sensational tactics to raise awareness and “force” a public impact, but it is doing nothing to encourage people to get involved. No meat eating, fur wearing person is going to approach you out of fear that they’ll be chained up and staked on the spot. Even vegetarians feel like they’re not “vegetarian enough” if they eat fish or other animal by-products (including honey, which ridiculously enough, you consider to be an “animal product.”)

As much as I value awareness, I value approachability more. You can’t force someone to adhere to a specific moral code. They are responsible for their own choices, no matter how big (or how small) those choices are.

Some people don’t want to risk violent protests and a criminal record to fight for what is essentially just a “pipe dream”—a fantastic, but vain hope of a world without meat.

No one needs to be exposed to your propaganda any longer PETA. I am a proud, respectful, peaceful person whose choices are subjective, but justifiable. In the end, I am accountable for my actions and mine alone, and no one will make me feel guilty.

Sorry PETA, I’m just one vegetarian who can’t take any more of your beef.

Categories
Student Life

SuWu bar in the heart of The Main brings out the soul in you

Press photo

Urban bar SuWu is an idyllic hipster hideaway, one that is bringing the concept of “soul food” back to the St. Laurent strip.

Press photo

Flanked on both sides by glitzy, high-profile bars and nightclubs that are signature to The Main, SuWu is almost imperceptible to pedestrians.

Its interior, while significantly more relaxed than its bass-pumping counterparts, is no less remarkable. Mason jar lights hang from the ceiling, repurposed barn wood and shelves of flea market antiques line the walls, and the bar even boasts the head of a carousel horse. The eye doesn’t know where to settle since every glance reveals something new. When the place is in full-swing, the stereo pumps out mellow hip-hop beats into the warmly-lit venue, giving it a Brooklyn feel in a central 514 location.

The love child of young entrepreneurs, it boasts a painstakingly compiled menu and wine list. SuWu’s plates are served up tapas-style: small servings at reasonable prices, so that groups of friends can sample many of the decadent offerings at once. Some all-stars include their truffle oil popcorn, buttermilk fried chicken (interestingly served with french toast and blueberry coulis) salmon tartare, and mini lobster rolls. Their main draw, however, is the grilled mac ‘n’ cheese.

The idea sounds completely gluttonous and “all American,” but no words can really capture how savoury their creamy, herbed mac ‘n’ cheese is when grilled between two buttery slices of country bread and served with a spicy marinara sauce for dipping. The idea is not new, but it is a risky dish that Montrealers haven’t quite seen since the creation of poutine.

With chefs constantly experimenting behind the scenes, the menu changes from time to time, but the new additions are always exciting. Paired with a “signature” drink like the “Big Booty Ho” — a mixture of pineapple juice and banana liqueur — or a draft beer, the selection is always satisfying, and never overwhelming.

SuWu is also open for brunch on the weekends, and offers mimosas as a side.

The overall atmosphere is welcoming and laid back. The emphasis on quality food and quality service is refreshing in a neighbourhood of “bottle service only” and music so loud that conversation becomes obsolete. At SuWu, it feels as though you are in a place that’s been standing since the turn of the century, among the oldest of friends.

Which is a resoundingly good feeling, since friends will not judge you for ordering seconds. Bar is located at 3581 St. Laurent, corner Prince Arthur.

 

Categories
Opinions

An honest mistake blown out of proportion

Photo by user Ryk Neethling on Flickr

The term “religious” shopper took on a literal meaning last week when Pastor Caleb Kaltenbach, browsing at Costco, noticed that the retail giant had labelled their inventory of Bibles as “fiction.” This observation and Kaltenbach’s subsequent tweets incited a very strong reaction among some Christians.

Photo by user Ryk Neethling on Flickr

Kaltenbach later explained that he was more intrigued than offended over the matter but regardless, Costco issued a public apology, blamed a labelling oversight in the distribution department, and stated that they “should have caught the mistake” before the holy books hit the shelves in Simi Valley, California.

Customers, however, continue to have mixed reactions. Non-believers are saluting the company for “taking a stance” against organized religion, while others are staging boycotts and expressing their anger via social media. Angry tweets ranged from people asking whether this would have happened with the Koran, and also people vowing to no longer spend money at the giant retailer.

Those that have reached out on the Internet, calling the incident “ironic” and “hilarious,” are the ones who have the right idea. Those who are outraged are blowing the incident completely out of proportion. Kaltenbach stated to Fox News that “what Costco did doesn’t seem too tolerant,” insinuating that the company was perhaps provoked by an unknown agenda.

In reality, this was exactly what company representatives claimed it was: an oversight. Costco is the second largest retailer in the United States, carrying thousands of products in their stores at any given time. With the volume of inventory being shipped in and out of warehouses, it isn’t inconceivable that a product or two put onto shelves is mislabelled.

The public isn’t outraged about the labelling alone, they are outraged that a multinational company seems to be mocking the text on which their whole belief system is based. The assumption is ridiculous, seeing as Costco wouldn’t stand to gain anything by making this kind of statement. Large companies are largely focused on their imports, profit margin and marketing techniques. It would be very bizarre if board meetings discussed strategies to blatantly enrage devout, God-fearing citizens.

The labelling is a very minute detail, and the controversy is only stemming from the fact that it is a religious book. Some groups don’t believe that the text can be realistically categorized anywhere. An article for the Canadian Atheist’s website claims that a “fiction section is for deliberate fiction,” and the Bible shouldn’t be labelled non-fiction on the grounds that it is “just badly flawed from the perspective of history, science, philosophy or indeed common sense.”

Ultimately, credit should be given to Costco for actually carrying the Bible among their other books. One would think that committed Christians would be happy that the word of God is available in a store primarily known for their economy sized packs of Gatorade and Kraft Dinner.

If people want to get lathered up about big companies and their policies, redirect the focus to important issues that affect our world and the people in it, like work conditions, environmental preservation, or international fair trade.

A one-inch sticker on a Bible should not shake Christian religious convictions. The simple, realistic solution would be to just peel it off and move on. Although, given the intensity of the reaction, fundamentalists may begin lobbying for a new commandment: thou shalt not mislabel.

Categories
Student Life

Men of all shapes and size are under lock and key

Graphic by Jennifer Kwan

American company CB-X, the self-proclaimed “World Leader in Male Chastity Devices,” got a “rise” out of consumers with the release of their modern “chastity lock.”

Graphic by Jennifer Kwan

The device is best described as a lockable designer sheath that fits over the penis and is meant to prevent men from masturbating or engaging in other sexual activities.

The product is available in a variety of patterns and sizes, including wood, chrome and camouflage.

However, chastity belts have a long and controversial history and despite attempts to modernize the device and appeal to a broader audience, scores of men and women have been rattled by its revival.

Historically, they were used for several different reasons. They were regarded as “anti-temptation devices” as far back as the Middle Ages. Women were forced to wear them by their crusading husbands in order to ensure their faithfulness and to prevent rape.

Even as recently as the 1930s, chastity belts were used on adolescents to prevent masturbation, as self-satisfaction was believed to be the cause of mental illness and a variety of other health issues.

These primitive devices were often unsanitary, with prolonged wear often resulting in sores, urinary infections and in extreme cases, death.

Based on this knowledge, the public’s perception of chastity devices is decidedly negative. People tend to draw associations with male dominance, assault, sexual deprivation or the idea of denying oneself sexual pleasure before marriage.

CB-X’s campaign takes a different angle, marketing the locks as an enhancer of sexual pleasure—a tool meant to heighten arousal by creating a physical barrier between partners. As sexologist and registered nurse at the Montreal General, Caroline Boudreault, puts it, “if someone wants to do it and is okay with doing it, then what happens in their pants is their own concern.”

Couples who dabble in BDSM, a variety of erotic practices involving dominance and submission, use devices similar to those being advertised by CB-X. They are normally worn by the submissive, who surrenders control to the dominant, also known as the “key holder.”

The belts are thought to increase arousal, which at the hands of the dominant, is maintained for an extended period of time without orgasming. Provoking this kind of sexual frustration goes hand in hand with the BDSM practice of “erotic sexual denial.” The key holder is the only one who may decide when, where, and how often the submissive is allowed sexual release.

The main difference between CB-X’s device and its ancestors, Boudreault explained, are the circumstances in which they are being used. This new incarnation is mostly intended for play, not as a means to impose lifelong chastity on someone else.

Despite the positive and pleasurable uses that are being explored, she emphasized the negative health implications that could potentially affect the wearer. Like its original incarnations from the Middle Ages, modern chastity locks still carry certain risks.

“If men are being sold a device that strangulates the penis and cuts normal blood flow, then we are not as advanced as we think we are,” she said.

The penis, an organ made up of vessels that fill with blood and dilate, needs room to expand and become erect. Preventing this process from occurring is dangerous, and may cause permanent vascular damage. Other risks include abrasive wounds, chafed skin, and other skin infections caused by leftover urine and a general neglect for hygiene. Overall, everyday wear is not recommended by healthcare officials.

Boudreault’s final words of advice on the topic: keep it safe, keep it clean, and don’t lose your key.

Exit mobile version