Backwards glance.

Currently listening to: “Heart of Gold” – Neil Young

In 2010, I learnt that change and variety are necessary to keep my life elated and mental state balanced. Through the darkest times, I have re-discovered my love of making art and playing music (best purchase of the year might have been the impulse-buy purple ukulele). I have gone searching, from job to job to – starting January – a new job where I can’t wait to settle into my niche. I need space to grow and explore, and I will probably never work from home because the “work-ization” of my sanctuary, my relaxation space, leads to stressful nervous breakdowns. I’ve seen my insecurities play out more prominently than before, forcing me to look them in the eye and start tackling them head-on. Like many years which have come before, I keep thinking I want to escape, just buy a one-way plane ticket somewhere far away and go. Oddly, sensibility curtails those urges, yet allowed me to drift around for an entire semester. I’m still as prone to procrastination and over-involved as ever. I’m not quite sure how those mesh together, but somehow it has been managed. I realized that I could never live somewhere with a population under 250,000. On that note, I still miss Ottawa and Montréal. Those who have moved out of my life in some shape or form: I miss you. Those who have drifted by, ended up joining in for tea and stronger beverages, and became friends, thank you. I don’t think I kept any of my lacklustre “resolutions” from last year. I don’t even remember them – though that may be reflective of poor memory rather than lack of drive. I’m ready for new adventures, wherever this future year may take me.

TIME’s Person of the Year?

Currently listening to: “Dégénération” – Mes Aïeux

In the 2010 TIME readers’ poll on who they believed deserved the Person of the Year award, Julian Assange, editor-in-chief of Wikileaks, came in first with a 100000-vote lead over runner-up Recep Erdogan (who, I am embarrassed to admit, I had to look up on Wikipedia) and Lady Gaga, who came in third place. TIME eventually crowned Mark Zuckerberg (10th in the poll) 2010′s Person of the Year for “connecting more than half a billion people and mapping the social relations among them, for creating a new system of exchanging information and for changing how we live our lives”. Yes, the media is social now. There has never been more information flow – including personal information – than now.

However, as much as social media has revolutionized the way people go about their daily lives, it must be noted that this is by no means a global phenomenon. Internet access remains scarce in most parts of the world. The users of social media are also self-selecting: generally, it is the educated, literate, and tech-savvy (or at the very least, those comfortable with using computers/cellphones) who have harnessed social media as a means of communication, information transmission, and forming connections. We see increased efforts by politicians to utilise social media to target this growing population, yet there is a reluctance by governments (yes, even in liberal democracies) and politicians to open up fully to this new paradigm of interaction where information is generated by the general public and difficult to moderate.

In authoritarian states, this is even more starkly illustrated, such as when China shut down Twitter before the 20th anniversary of the Tienanmen Square protests. Twitter remains censored, as are blogs and Google search results (despite “open information access” and all). Lately, China has launched its own microblogging platform in response to the popularity of Twitter, featuring Confusian quotes and assorted propaganda. (A very funny parody Twitter account has emerged in mockery and for good laughs.)

In any case, this brings us to Julian Assange. Facebook purports to create a more open society, increased information flow, and reveal more authentic personas. But what about on the global scale? Wikileaks, whether one agrees with the means of information release, has opened the doors to a new and transparent diplomacy – one where governments can and should expect their actions to be under close global scrutiny, and subsequently, be held accountable for their actions. By harnessing the power of information release, it levels the playing field by bringing governments to the same level as their citizens. Governments’ “personas”, if we can call them such, which were previously speculated upon through policy and foreign relations are revealed in greater depth. Indeed, Wikileaks has resulted in far greater transparency than social media sites have, simply due to the reticent nature of governments in utilising social media or connecting with the people.Just drawing from the TEDTalk above, massive social media mobilization during Barack Obama’s presidential campaign failed to influence his decision on net neutrality policy, yet the Afghan War Logs and Iraq War Diaries not only got average citizens interested, but also forced politicians to discuss issues which had been placed into the spotlight. If TIME had truly wanted to champion the creation of a more open society, increased information transmission and transparency, it (quite ironically, really) ought to have taken the readers’ poll into higher account, and awarded the title of Person of the Year to Assange.

Perspective

Currently listening to: “Only the Good Die Young” – Billy Joel

“I watched the preview of Canada’s Jersey Shore: trashy Canadians. Then I thought about one of my favourite YA books at home that to me, captures everything it means to be young and Canadian. And I realised there isn’t anything out there that really represents us: young Canadian women who are smart, well read, care about social matters, and can drop Tommy Douglas and HIMYM references at the drop of the hat. Lake Shore made me think of other reality shows like The Hills, and I just thought, it’s a shame if all young people are represented by this. I mean, yes, we like to shop and drink too, but we do it while making biblical and Justin Bieber jokes.”
- Megan K. Ho, Canadian in the UK, wisecracking friend extraordinaire

Foursquare revisited

Currently listening to: “Itty Bitty Piggy” – Nicki Minaj

Several rants ago, I expounded on why I found Foursquare and other social media geotagging apps were incredibly annoying and a form of “reverse stalking” – where the user, instead of being followed, foists their present coordinates at any given point upon their social network. Convinced that this was a passing fad – why would you use a separate piece of social media which indicated your present location, when you could just tweet where you were? – I brushed it off as simply another one of those Internet things that would come and go while being mildly annoyed at periodic “I’m at the UBC Bus Loop!” posts which would pop up on my Twitter feed.

I then noticed that I was doing my own form of “reverse stalking” with incredibly detailed tweets – exactly what I had accused others of doing – and decided to give Foursquare a try for a month. I’m still getting the hang of it. I still have the same issues mentioned in the previous post: instead of sharing with the world some exclamation point-laden message when some fascinating occurrence emerges, it feels awfully unnatural to simply check in to locations when nothing particularly worth mentioning is happening. However, the promotions and free giveaways at some locations are a delightful surprise. Will it win me over, or shall I return to oversharing in the form of Twitter? We shall see.

Let’s just stop celebrating mediocrity

Currently listening to: “Pick Up the Phone” – Dragonette

Sue Farrell Holler’s latest column, Ordinary Parents Should Expect Ordinary Children, is a prime example of society’s growing acceptance (and terrifyingly, encouragement) of mediocrity.

Since when did mediocrity become something to aspire to? Society as a whole has already accepted a staggering banality of thought and being. Pre-pubescent “music talents” are discovered on YouTube. American voters are more likely to elect a candidate with whom they’d prefer to have a beer over a candidate who is articulate and intelligent. In Western Canada, unless you’re in a French immersion program, you can kiss becoming fluent in two languages goodbye. This article is a celebration of mediocrity coupled with social determinism which fails to acknowledge individual effort and mental capabilities.

Holler begins with a statement I believe most people can agree with: “I subscribe to the idea that we make our own luck; that “luck” comes on the heels of perseverance and hard work.” This is completely reasonable. What we achieve is a measure of the effort we are willing to put in, combined with societal factors and the opportunities we are presented with.

However, in the next breath, she proceeds to say, “Current thoughts in child-rearing are that one should praise the child, seek and develop his talents, make him extraordinary. But isn’t that setting the child up for a fall from the gilded podium, down the sheer cliffs and into the abyss of ordinary?” Where is the perseverance and hard work she speaks of now? Parents, guardians, teachers, and mentors are there to guide children in the path to success and out of mediocrity – not to drive them further into it. Of course there may be pitfalls along the way. But to imply that to “seek and develop” children’s talents is a waste because they’re most likely going to be “ordinary” anyway is a complete rejection of all the opportunities which youth are exposed to today – not to mention contradictory to her embracement of hard work and perseverance. Furthermore, by saying “sometimes [reaching lofty goals] happens. But normally, it doesn’t,” Holler completely ignores the learning process to harp on the end result based on her own arbitrary definition of being successful and extraordinary.

“Time and again you see parents praising, cajoling, supporting, and pushing their children in the arts, in sports, and academics with dreams that their child – the child of ordinary parents.” Holler comments. Some kids want to be astronauts, others want to be artists. As a child of what she would call “ordinary parents” – to me, they are extraordinary in their own way – I was enrolled in art school, piano lessons, and dance classes. Piano classes and I definitely did not get along, but I absolutely loved art school. I kicked a child in dance class and am very sorry for it to this day (mostly because of the mockery that ensues when people find out). Did I think I was going to be a great artist some day? Yes. That didn’t happen (I draw stick people now). But I am certainly better for having done it, for having been exposed to culture and art, for knowing my Baroque from my Romantic, for having learnt so much in the process nevertheless.

Holler’s statement, “Our children, the children of ordinary parents, are likely to be just as ordinary,” completely undermines the ability of a future generation to accomplish their goals and fulfil their aspirations with the guidance of parents, teachers, and other mentors. There is a blithe deterministic streak in this statement that flouts the ideas of meritocracy by saying that the financial and class status of the family one is born into defines their future possibilities. While wealthy families can provide their children with assistance in the way of private tutors, overseas trips, and cultural education, to say that children born to “ordinary” families cannot rise above something as arbitrary as social class to be extraordinary is absolutely ridiculous. Of course someone will end up ordinary and washed-out if they have not been provided with adequate resources for self-advancement, or encouraged to perform to the best of their ability. Of course they will be mediocre and mundane if they have been told is that they do not have the capacity to achieve and that pursuing their dreams and interests are likely to end up in failure as they came from an “ordinary” family.

Unplugged

Currently listening to: “Old School” – Hedley

The past two days of camping and Northern Alberta adventuring with my roommate has been unlike anything else. Journeying the back-country gravel roads in her dainty little silver car with an out-of-scale map in hand, wandering the badlands secretly hoping to stumble across some prehistoric fossil, too many coffee stops in little villages (and getting yelled at by ornery elderly folk), getting lost, campfires so hot glass melted, skies so blue and vast you could see into forever and never look back, singing along to an endless stream of 90s cruising tunes so loud our throats hurt, escaping from faux-realities we’ve crafted to cope

Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional!

Currently listening to: “Marlaina Kamikaze” – The Zolas

Hell yeah! About time, too. A more detailed post to come soon. In the meantime…

“Child-free”, not “childless”

Currently listening to: “Je veux te voir” – Yelle

This BBC article on women electing to remain child-free is absolutely wonderful, and just nails the issue of societal expectations for women to be mothers.

Amidst my own friends and acquaintences – women in our twenties – I remain baffled at the surprise and bewilderment that some of them encounter when I express my absolute lack of desire to procreate. There remains, even among our supposedly liberated and tolerant generation, a bizarre non-acceptance that I may decide, out of free and rational choice, to never have children. I’ve always had a difficult time dealing with children (even as a child myself) and have no intention whatsoever to bear progeny of my own. I have no desire to be responsible for the mental and emotional developmental process of another individual, and I see no issue with my firmly entrenched decision.

But apparently people still fail to see this as a personal choice: one of my former roommates cites evolutionary psychology to support her view that it is illogical for women not want to have children; we are, she insists, biologically wired to want to procreate and carry on our genetic information, hence the supposed “mothering instinct” (which I do not believe in, by the way – there are many women who simply have no desire to be mothers). To which, I retort that we are rational beings who are perfectly capable of making our own choices and reproductive decisions – to say that “Nature made us this way and we have to follow our hormones blindly” seems like a bit of a cop-out to me.

In a separate occasion, an acquaintance of mine expressed horror that I had decided on my future remaining child-free, asking “But don’t you want someone to love, and to love you unconditionally?” No. That’s an absolutely selfish and narcissistic reason to have children. The mere assumption that your offspring – sentient, individually-thinking beings which are fully capable of making their own choices – will definitely love you unconditionally is so patently untrue, not to mention utterly self-absorbed, that it renders this argument for reproducing moot. Besides, child-bearing being a personal choice, the potential capacity of the child to love (or not love) the mother should have no bearing on the potential mother’s decision.

Just today, in conversation over coffee, a friend mentioned that she was feeling the pressure from her extended family to settle down and procreate. And though she was amenable to having children at some point in the future, she didn’t see how it was an issue anyone else ought to have a say in. So what, really, am I saying at the end of all this? One shouldn’t need to answer to anyone else about why they have chosen to remain child-free. Just as some people have no intention of owning a television, others simply have no desire to have children (my feelings towards the two are similar: not needed in my foreseeable future life plans). It’s time women stop having their decisions towards reproduction questioned, and be accepted as an issue of personal choice just like any other.

Camelot all over again?

Currently listening to: “Fire with Fire” – Scissor Sisters

Rebecca Traister’s rant in Salon about how media attention surrounding Chelsea Clinton’s wedding is sexist and “emblematic of how our culture rewards women who marry”, is rather misleading. While Traister brings up countless excellent points about society’s continuing obsession with marriage and the expectations surrounding marriage which are pressured onto women, she has definitely missed the mark on why Clinton’s wedding is such a massive deal.

This media frenzy is a reflection of society’s need for pageantry, for pomp and circumstance. Equal media attention is lavished on the Windsors and Prince William’s ongoing nuptial saga (will he? will he not?) to feed society’s hunger to read about people who seem untouchable – and prior to that, other royal weddings (and divorces) have fed the public’s imagination. Recall that Diana’s marriage to Prince Charles was televised worldwide, and the ongoing drama of the monarchy continues to make headlines in tabloids and newspapers all around the world. (Note that likewise, when the behaviour in question does not feed into the public’s imagination of how the royals ought to comport themselves, such as Charles and Camilla’s wedding, the media is equally ferocious in its criticism.)

Like the Kennedys and their Camelot, the Clintons are practically American royalty, carrying on a legacy of a certain class and elegance, and that is why people are fascinated by the wedding (and the media is all too happy to capitalise on that). A quick Google search will reveal this fact: the BBC, the Daily Mail, and the Telegraph all refer to it as “America’s royal wedding”, as have many news outlets from around the globe. As much as the idea of a monarchy may be abhorrent in a democratic republic, the idea of a political family dynasty and the gossip fodder that comes with it still manages to spark interest in the public.

The Ivy League and affirmative action

Currently listening to: “Home for a Rest” – Spirit of the West

I’ve been wanting to write in response to Ross Douthat’s column on the New York Times, The Roots of White Anxiety for a while now.

Douthat argues that the most underrepresented group of students in elite American universities are “working-class whites (and white Christians in particular) from conservative states and regions”, suggesting that the combination of wealthy applicants and affirmative action lessens opportunities for what he perceives as the true minority group in the academic realm. He also lambastes the lack of representation among the “stereotypically rural or right-wing”, citing “R.O.T.C. cadets” and “aspiring farmers”.

To combat his argument, the group he has cited is also the group least likely to be open to progressive ideas and challenging preconceived notions. Take the example of the Texas textbook revisions, in which, amidst other edits involving religion and politics, Jefferson is hardly mentioned (due to his “separation of church and state” line) and intelligent design is held up as equally credible as evolution. The school system barely creates knowledgeable dinner companions, much less prepares students adequately to write standardized exams where a certain level of academic competency is required. There is absolutely no fault in any elite university which refuses to admit students which have not met necessary criteria to continue their education in such a rigorous environment – in fact, it is only the perfectly meritocratic way of proceeding. Besides, affirmative action was meant to be a way of helping under-represented students who were perfectly qualified and otherwise might be discriminated against – it is not meant to help unqualified individuals get ahead.

Furthermore, another question worth considering is the number of “aspiring farmers” who apply to Ivy League universities. I am going to make the logical assumption that a larger percentage of aspiring lawyers, journalists, doctors, and nuclear physicists would apply to elite universities, as compared to aspiring farmers. Perhaps we ought to be looking into the percentage of (qualified) aspiring farmers admitted, and percentage of (qualified) aspiring lawyers admitted, and compare admission rates between the two groups, instead of merely looking at the percentage of a cohort which aspiring farmers make up.

Douthat’s column could have examined very real and pressing issues with the education system in some conservative states and how students are unprepared for rigorous higher education; instead, by taking a racial-religious angle, he has failed to address the true cause of much of the under-representation he speaks of.