I have no idea who this guy is- but I love this song- and the joy in his voice, in the crowd, and in the lyrics.
this song makes me joyful.
i hope that it makes you feel happy too.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Sundays
I love sundays.
I love sundays because I soak up every last second of the weekend.
I love that Sundays can be equally lazy AND productive.
Sleeping in, brunches with friends, hardcore ultiamte games that leave me red in the face for hours, grocery shopping, laundry, church, beers afterwards.
Ah, Sundays are so good.
I love sundays because I soak up every last second of the weekend.
I love that Sundays can be equally lazy AND productive.
Sleeping in, brunches with friends, hardcore ultiamte games that leave me red in the face for hours, grocery shopping, laundry, church, beers afterwards.
Ah, Sundays are so good.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
[rad]ical
Last night I had a really good talk with a friend of mine- as per usual, I was reminded of how grateful I am to have such smart and compassionate women to call friends. My friend is a social work student and we were talking about “the system”- While we were talking about social work in particular, this thought on “the system” can really be used to analyze any system that perpetuates or condones injustice- like the economy or the political system. My friend was talking about how she wrote a paper about how social workers DO perpetuate systems of inequality and dependency. Her argument for why this is was that social workers are lukewarm. I would like to make the claim that MOST of us are lukewarm, thus we all play a role in preserving the status quo. She used the example of radical feminist Simone de Beauvoir to illuminate her point. de Beauvoir makes the argument that all heterosexual sex is in essence rape. This statement seems a little far left on the crazy scale to me- as it did to my friend. But her point was that women studies students will learn de Beauvoir’s argument and then debate it. While de Beauvoir is on the far left of the crazy/too “progressive” continuum, patriarchy and our society in general is probably on the too far right/”back in the stone ages” oppressive. So, these students debate, think, question and wonder- and often end up changed because of a discussion based on such a radical notion. My point here is not to debate the legitimacy of de Beauvoir’s claim, but rather to emphasize that the students were changed by the discussion. My friend argued that social workers are too lukewarm because they themselves are never changed by the discussion- that they are not radical enough, and perhaps not radical at all.
I think Christian thinking comes into play at this point. Some of the most kind, generous, visionary and world-changing people I know are Christians. These people are seen as radicals in our society because they too are willing to be changed by the message. For these people the change comes from believing that Jesus offered us a different way of life- a way to be free from the rat race we live in, a way to cultivate grace and love, the way of community. Here, these Christians are acting like the women studies students that I spoke of above- they are changed by a message, by a belief. So, not only does their thinking change, but their entire life changes…what they value, eat, read, watch, buy, judge, find happiness- all of that changes. Those who are willing to follow the value system of Jesus AND feminists are ALL ABOUT changing the status quo- all about redeeming the mess that we find ourselves in. Feminists may want to change the hypersexualization of women or have more elected women in office where as Christians might want to see less lonely people, fewer hungry people, etc- the key similarity is that what we have now, where we are now, isn’t working- and it’s not enough. You don’t need to look very far to see that millions die from lack of clean water and nutrition and women certainly are not yet equally valued in society.
What is so inspiring about the people that work for these causes, is that they first long to change themselves. To unlearn. To question. To seek justice inside and then outside.
If we want the world to change- if we want the “system” to stop being so screwed up- where children always have enough food and those with disabilities are able to live without the fear of poverty- then we first need to change ourselves.
The question that I have to ask myself is – what am I doing to first change myself, how I live, what I value.
Changing “the system” will never happen if we continue to believe that it is the job of paid professionals to “help the needy” – we should have learned by now that by compartmentalizing our lives- our personal life from our work or careers, we are rendering ourselves ineffective.
My friend’s conception of the “lukewarm social worker” serves as a message to myself that if I want to help people, if I want the world to be a more just and equitable place, it is not going to be about WHERE I work, or WHAT I do, but rather WHO I am. Who YOU are. There are 168 hours in a week- you might work 40 of them…the question is what are you doing with the other 128 hours?
And to end on a rather cliché note, it really does come back to the idea of “BEING the change you want to see in the world”.
And again, I love that is concept is so compatible with the message of Jesus- it’s not about what you do, where you work, what you believe, where you come from- but rather it’s about the unchanging truth that we are loved. And if you ARE something- it should pour out of you and flow into every area of your life.
That is where change is going to come from.
I think Christian thinking comes into play at this point. Some of the most kind, generous, visionary and world-changing people I know are Christians. These people are seen as radicals in our society because they too are willing to be changed by the message. For these people the change comes from believing that Jesus offered us a different way of life- a way to be free from the rat race we live in, a way to cultivate grace and love, the way of community. Here, these Christians are acting like the women studies students that I spoke of above- they are changed by a message, by a belief. So, not only does their thinking change, but their entire life changes…what they value, eat, read, watch, buy, judge, find happiness- all of that changes. Those who are willing to follow the value system of Jesus AND feminists are ALL ABOUT changing the status quo- all about redeeming the mess that we find ourselves in. Feminists may want to change the hypersexualization of women or have more elected women in office where as Christians might want to see less lonely people, fewer hungry people, etc- the key similarity is that what we have now, where we are now, isn’t working- and it’s not enough. You don’t need to look very far to see that millions die from lack of clean water and nutrition and women certainly are not yet equally valued in society.
What is so inspiring about the people that work for these causes, is that they first long to change themselves. To unlearn. To question. To seek justice inside and then outside.
If we want the world to change- if we want the “system” to stop being so screwed up- where children always have enough food and those with disabilities are able to live without the fear of poverty- then we first need to change ourselves.
The question that I have to ask myself is – what am I doing to first change myself, how I live, what I value.
Changing “the system” will never happen if we continue to believe that it is the job of paid professionals to “help the needy” – we should have learned by now that by compartmentalizing our lives- our personal life from our work or careers, we are rendering ourselves ineffective.
My friend’s conception of the “lukewarm social worker” serves as a message to myself that if I want to help people, if I want the world to be a more just and equitable place, it is not going to be about WHERE I work, or WHAT I do, but rather WHO I am. Who YOU are. There are 168 hours in a week- you might work 40 of them…the question is what are you doing with the other 128 hours?
And to end on a rather cliché note, it really does come back to the idea of “BEING the change you want to see in the world”.
And again, I love that is concept is so compatible with the message of Jesus- it’s not about what you do, where you work, what you believe, where you come from- but rather it’s about the unchanging truth that we are loved. And if you ARE something- it should pour out of you and flow into every area of your life.
That is where change is going to come from.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Sex Work
Last week I was fortunate enough to hear Maggie de Vries speak. De Vries is the sister of Sarah de Vries, a woman whose remains were found on Robert Pickton’s now infamous pig farm. Listening to de Vries was interesting for many reasons. Of course, she had a first hand experience of losing a loved one- whereas the rest of us had heard about the awful crimes of Robert Pickton on the news, de Vries lived this reality. More than that, what I took from her presentation was a lesson in assumptions and language.
De Vries spoke of her personal pain and anger of “losing” her sister to drug addiction and the sex trade. She spoke of her judgment towards her sister’s lifestyle. How she feared for her safety when she would visit her, how she discounted that any goodness coming from the lower east side. After her sister was killed de Vries was given her journals- which were her sister’s art and long time mode of expression. De Vries spoke of how she felt “allowed” to read and share her sister’s work because she had been so open with it herself. What was so striking- and shouldn’t have been- was that de Vries showed us, her audience, WHO her sister was, even after her death. The humanity and life that was Sarah de Vries was not underscored by the fact that she was a drug addict, or a sex trade worker. She was first and foremost loved. De Vries spoke of how she was proud of her sister and how if she could go back in time- she would have judged less and loved more. The irony of retrospect is that it is often too late to practice the things we have learned from a given situation- but the beauty is that the lesson carries over to a million and one different circumstances. Maggie cannot bring her sister back so she can love her freely despite her addiction and life choices. But we can love those around us despite their inadequacies. We still have that chance.
Maggie De Vries also spoke of how language can perpetuate or condone violence. Sex work has always existed and will probably always continue to exist. Often those in the sex trade, especially low track, have come to it because of an addiction that must constantly be pacified. Others however, may chose sex work because they are able to make more money, to feed their children, put themselves through school. There is a common phrase that is often used to describe the transaction between a sex trade worker and his or her client: “selling your body.” It is this conception that one can “sell their body” that silently excuses violence against sex trade workers. De Vries made the argument that no one can ever sell their body. It is inherently owned- nothing we do can sell our own bodies. Using this language, innocent or as common as it may seem, appears to give ownership to the client “purchasing” the body. Take for example a masseuse. When a client gets a massage they make a transaction with the masseuse, for a set number of minutes that masseuse will use their hands to rub the clients back. Yet we do not think that this masseuse has “sold” his or her body. When someone receives a massage and buys the service, they are not allowed to do whatever they want to the hands of the masseuse- they cannot break his or her fingers. There is a contract- services are exchanged and both people go on with their day. Yet the stigma of sex- and sex work in particular, has us believe that when a sex worker makes a contract with a client- a sexual act for a set payment, they have somehow signed over control of their body to this client. This conception of “selling one’s body” is so problematic because it means that the sex worker can set no boundaries, has no rights, and thus can be violated or abused in any way that the client sees fit. I would argue that most women (and probably most men) who sell sex have been beaten or raped numerous times. We need to rethink our use of language around the sex trade. Yet this will still only be a first step in combating the violence that happens to so many on our Canadian streets. As I mentioned above, many but not all sex trade workers have drug addictions. I would also make the argument that many sex trade workers were some of the most marginalized in our society before they began to sell sex. Whether from abuse, poverty, social exclusion, addiction- marginalization occurs. The problem is compounded when one enters the sex trade because further ostracization occurs. Think about it- selling sex is “yucky”- and normal “good” people do not want to see it on our streets. De Vries spoke of how originally many sex workers in Vancouver worked on streets that were more residential, with more people to see them and to notice if anything went wrong. However, “good, upstanding” citizens did not want to see sex workers on their streets, so the police became more forceful in removing them from the areas- not only for selling sex, but for simply being there. So, naturally, the sex trade was further pushed to the margins, into the industrial, run down, virtually empty east end, making it easier for predators like Robert Pickton to simply whisk women away.
What I learned more than anything was that a person can never be boiled down into a single category. The women that Robert Pickton killed were not only sex workers- they were sisters, mothers, lovers, friends, aunts, readers, cooks. They, like all of us, deserved to live without the fear of violence, whether they chose to sell sex or not. We cannot and should not create these small boxes for those we love to live in. Doing this can lead to dualistic thinking where one person is “saviour” and the other is “failure”. De Vries noted that when she went to visit her sister in the slum house she lived in she always felt weighed down by her feeling of being a “failed saviour” and she imagines now that her sister felt equally crippled by her feeling of simply being a failure. We need to learn to love people as they are and give ourselves the freedom to love others without questioning how that person’s choices or actions make us look.
Lastly and perhaps most importantly I have learned that nothing, not even through selling sex can you “sell your body”- because it is irreconcilably your own. Violence is never, ever warranted, regardless of the transactions we participate in.
De Vries spoke of her personal pain and anger of “losing” her sister to drug addiction and the sex trade. She spoke of her judgment towards her sister’s lifestyle. How she feared for her safety when she would visit her, how she discounted that any goodness coming from the lower east side. After her sister was killed de Vries was given her journals- which were her sister’s art and long time mode of expression. De Vries spoke of how she felt “allowed” to read and share her sister’s work because she had been so open with it herself. What was so striking- and shouldn’t have been- was that de Vries showed us, her audience, WHO her sister was, even after her death. The humanity and life that was Sarah de Vries was not underscored by the fact that she was a drug addict, or a sex trade worker. She was first and foremost loved. De Vries spoke of how she was proud of her sister and how if she could go back in time- she would have judged less and loved more. The irony of retrospect is that it is often too late to practice the things we have learned from a given situation- but the beauty is that the lesson carries over to a million and one different circumstances. Maggie cannot bring her sister back so she can love her freely despite her addiction and life choices. But we can love those around us despite their inadequacies. We still have that chance.
Maggie De Vries also spoke of how language can perpetuate or condone violence. Sex work has always existed and will probably always continue to exist. Often those in the sex trade, especially low track, have come to it because of an addiction that must constantly be pacified. Others however, may chose sex work because they are able to make more money, to feed their children, put themselves through school. There is a common phrase that is often used to describe the transaction between a sex trade worker and his or her client: “selling your body.” It is this conception that one can “sell their body” that silently excuses violence against sex trade workers. De Vries made the argument that no one can ever sell their body. It is inherently owned- nothing we do can sell our own bodies. Using this language, innocent or as common as it may seem, appears to give ownership to the client “purchasing” the body. Take for example a masseuse. When a client gets a massage they make a transaction with the masseuse, for a set number of minutes that masseuse will use their hands to rub the clients back. Yet we do not think that this masseuse has “sold” his or her body. When someone receives a massage and buys the service, they are not allowed to do whatever they want to the hands of the masseuse- they cannot break his or her fingers. There is a contract- services are exchanged and both people go on with their day. Yet the stigma of sex- and sex work in particular, has us believe that when a sex worker makes a contract with a client- a sexual act for a set payment, they have somehow signed over control of their body to this client. This conception of “selling one’s body” is so problematic because it means that the sex worker can set no boundaries, has no rights, and thus can be violated or abused in any way that the client sees fit. I would argue that most women (and probably most men) who sell sex have been beaten or raped numerous times. We need to rethink our use of language around the sex trade. Yet this will still only be a first step in combating the violence that happens to so many on our Canadian streets. As I mentioned above, many but not all sex trade workers have drug addictions. I would also make the argument that many sex trade workers were some of the most marginalized in our society before they began to sell sex. Whether from abuse, poverty, social exclusion, addiction- marginalization occurs. The problem is compounded when one enters the sex trade because further ostracization occurs. Think about it- selling sex is “yucky”- and normal “good” people do not want to see it on our streets. De Vries spoke of how originally many sex workers in Vancouver worked on streets that were more residential, with more people to see them and to notice if anything went wrong. However, “good, upstanding” citizens did not want to see sex workers on their streets, so the police became more forceful in removing them from the areas- not only for selling sex, but for simply being there. So, naturally, the sex trade was further pushed to the margins, into the industrial, run down, virtually empty east end, making it easier for predators like Robert Pickton to simply whisk women away.
What I learned more than anything was that a person can never be boiled down into a single category. The women that Robert Pickton killed were not only sex workers- they were sisters, mothers, lovers, friends, aunts, readers, cooks. They, like all of us, deserved to live without the fear of violence, whether they chose to sell sex or not. We cannot and should not create these small boxes for those we love to live in. Doing this can lead to dualistic thinking where one person is “saviour” and the other is “failure”. De Vries noted that when she went to visit her sister in the slum house she lived in she always felt weighed down by her feeling of being a “failed saviour” and she imagines now that her sister felt equally crippled by her feeling of simply being a failure. We need to learn to love people as they are and give ourselves the freedom to love others without questioning how that person’s choices or actions make us look.
Lastly and perhaps most importantly I have learned that nothing, not even through selling sex can you “sell your body”- because it is irreconcilably your own. Violence is never, ever warranted, regardless of the transactions we participate in.
Monday, October 6, 2008
This and that...
Today I realized that I am no longer in the stage of my life where I own one box of cereal at a time...but I am still in the place where cereal, soy milk, and salad seems is an average and acceptable dinner.
Ahh, how things change. I'm up to three boxes now. I may or may not be hoarding.
On a completely different note- I was thinking a little bit about relationships. I picked up this book at Matt's place yesterday by a somewhat local (Christian) author. In this book, the author talks about his life and his work with the marginalized. In the forward and throughout the book he mentions his wife- as his partner, his support, someone he prays with, raises his children with, etc. I knew picking up this book, that the author had split up (maybe divorced?) his wife. I couldn't help think about this as I read the book. What struck me, was at the time of writing, it seemed, from the book anyway, that this couple was doing great things in their life and marriage. Working together with those who are forgotten by society, praying, living. I was reminded that we can never take our relationships, whether they be intimate partnerships or friendships, for granted. We cannot let things coast in neutral. A relationship is a little bit like a car. Put it in drive, with fuel, proper maintenance and care, it will run. But if you shift the car into neutral, and fail to be mindful and persistent, the car will eventually come to a stop. It may roll for a while in neutral, depending on the external variables, but when faced with a challenge like a hill, the car will ultimately stop moving forward.
Reading stories of couples that seem to have it all together and then brake up years and years into their marriages scare me. But it also serves as a gentle reminder to take nothing for granted. Especially the people who mean the most to us. While I am not married, and cannot really KNOW what it's like in the experiential sense, I do know that the fruit of growing with, wrestling with, stumbling with, loving with, hurting with, laughing with, crying with, searching with one person forever is priceless. I heard a good quote once saying " If you knew what you were getting into by getting married, you'd never do it. But at the end of your life together, you'd never have it any other way. That pretty much says it. We will always marry the wrong person. If we were to marry the right person, we'd have to marry ourselves. Because, unfortunately, the human condition has us almost instinctually try to meet our own needs first. No wonder it's a struggle!
Ahh, how things change. I'm up to three boxes now. I may or may not be hoarding.
On a completely different note- I was thinking a little bit about relationships. I picked up this book at Matt's place yesterday by a somewhat local (Christian) author. In this book, the author talks about his life and his work with the marginalized. In the forward and throughout the book he mentions his wife- as his partner, his support, someone he prays with, raises his children with, etc. I knew picking up this book, that the author had split up (maybe divorced?) his wife. I couldn't help think about this as I read the book. What struck me, was at the time of writing, it seemed, from the book anyway, that this couple was doing great things in their life and marriage. Working together with those who are forgotten by society, praying, living. I was reminded that we can never take our relationships, whether they be intimate partnerships or friendships, for granted. We cannot let things coast in neutral. A relationship is a little bit like a car. Put it in drive, with fuel, proper maintenance and care, it will run. But if you shift the car into neutral, and fail to be mindful and persistent, the car will eventually come to a stop. It may roll for a while in neutral, depending on the external variables, but when faced with a challenge like a hill, the car will ultimately stop moving forward.
Reading stories of couples that seem to have it all together and then brake up years and years into their marriages scare me. But it also serves as a gentle reminder to take nothing for granted. Especially the people who mean the most to us. While I am not married, and cannot really KNOW what it's like in the experiential sense, I do know that the fruit of growing with, wrestling with, stumbling with, loving with, hurting with, laughing with, crying with, searching with one person forever is priceless. I heard a good quote once saying " If you knew what you were getting into by getting married, you'd never do it. But at the end of your life together, you'd never have it any other way. That pretty much says it. We will always marry the wrong person. If we were to marry the right person, we'd have to marry ourselves. Because, unfortunately, the human condition has us almost instinctually try to meet our own needs first. No wonder it's a struggle!
Finally...
I want to send a HUGE happy birthday to my INCREDIBLE and BEAUTIFUL friend Kim.
Kim, you don't even know how great you are- which is one of the qualities that makes you so amazing. You've shown me more about friendship than you'll ever know.
I am so HAPPY that you were born. Today I am celebrating YOUR life. You bring so much beauty into the world.
I love you!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
