Go "snag" yourself!

Oh, for fuck's sake.

Typically, I have nothing against the "wiki-verse." Wikipedia, for instance, is useful - and can lead to hours of "fascinated clicking" - but what is with some of the shit I've been coming across on Wikihow lately?

"How to Act Around a Guy You Like." Yeah. Nothing except a simple "be yourself" should have fallen under that entry. Actually that entry shouldn't even exist. Why? Because it perpetuates negative, stereotypical attitudes about gender, and relationships, and I'm so fucking sick of "Cosmo" culture that revolves entirely around "snagging a man."

In our "post-feminist" world, all the media geared towards women is still feeding us this constant bullshit that we can't function without a guy, that we must spend our entire existence fitting into cookie cutter after clichéd cookie cutter ideal of What Men Want. How to get a man. How to please our man. How to keep our man.

And it all comes down to shit like this:

"Don't show off - let him do that. While you think you may be "impressing" him, guys don't really appreciate when girls show them up. They need to feel like a man, even if they are just boys."

That tired stereotype is special enough to be offensive to both sexes on many levels. It assumes that men are insecure, sexist assholes who need to feel superior to women. It assumes that there's nothing wrong with men being insecure, sexist assholes who need to feel superior to women. That's just "boys being boys" Ha. Ha. It encourages women to stifle themselves for the sake of male ego. That puts women in a deliberate position of inequality to men. And what the hell is with that condescending final line?

And then there's this classic:

"If you think that he is interested, show him a little that you are interested too, like a little flirting, but not to over the top, you don't want him to think you're desprate! Trust me, that's not the way to get things done."

This type of neurotic advice is common and stupid. Flirt, but don't flirt too much! Be forward, but don't come on too strong! Make him take notice, but not too much notice! Second guess, second guess, frantically try to achieve some arbitrary balance, blah. It's the manufactured, phony dance of calculated courtship, the likes of which Jane Austen would have scoffed at. "You don't want him to think you're desperate!" - Well, if you're consulting a list like this, then you clearly are. And if you're desperate for a man, then a man is the last thing you need.

And this last one actually took me by surprise:

"Once you got him, don't let go unless he's acting like a real ass. It won't get you a good reputation at your school or whatever if you just go around dumping guys left and right."

The fuck? It is actually being suggested that a young woman in a relationship should stay in said relationship, even if she wants out (for whatever reason), just for the sake of saving face? This pisses me off for so many reasons.

For starters, why shouldn't a girl "[dump] guys left and right" if she sees fit? I'm tired of this bullshit "slut" double standard that flies around all the time - and usually from girls about other girls. I blame the patriarchy that female sexuality is still subjected to such scrutiny, and connotations, and ass backwards notions of acceptable behavior. It's 2007 and women enjoy sex. Get over it.

Secondly, nobody should ever remain in a relationship if they no longer want to be in said relationship. And they certainly shouldn't have to justify their decisions to outsiders. Besides, if you'll see above, only assholes make the kind of judgments the advice-giver is so concerned about.

Third, what exactly constitutes "acting like an ass," anyway? It's very subjective - what might be shitty behavior for one person, another might find perfectly acceptable. To me, "acting like an ass" is writing hackneyed advice about "snagging a man."

This is so beyond overdone, by now. Enough "You need a man" brainwashing. Enough clichéd flirting and dating tips. Can't we move on from these stupid, juvenile games and just be real? I like myself the way I am, and if I want to be with somebody (I will never need to), why should I have to slip into some bogus gender role and proceed to manipulate? Worthwhile guys are not interested in all the stupid trappings. They want to get to know you.

... And people wonder why the only "Women's" magazine I read is Bitch...

The Privileged People's Government

I noticed today, as I was cleaning behind the microwave, that some unopened mail had fallen back there, apparently recently. (Yes, my family tosses mail on top of the microwave instead of some more appropriate designated spot. Old habits). Among other items of junk mail, I found a letter from the House of Commons - specifically, the office of Jim Prentice (Conservative M.P. here in Calgary, for those not in the know).

Yep. Like many Calgarians, I, too, was treated to a boastful letter packed full of gushing Conservative sentiment from a government official just tickled over the super-terrific job Harper et al have been doing since coming into power a year and a half ago. Here's what he had to say about the fantastic things that have been happening in Calgary:

"Recently our government:

• fulfilled its promise to maintain Gas Tax funding for municipalities... This funding will be used to fund environmentally sustainable municipal infrastructure projects, such as Calgary Transit expansion projects;
• pledged to refund all the GST cities pay to the Federal Government. Last year, over $23 million was returned to the City of Calgary which was used to fund capital projects in order to improve the lives of Calgarians. These projects include expansions of Heritage Park, Fort Calgary, the Calgary Zoo, the new central library branch, and the Calgary Science Centre;
• allocated $25 million inn new funding for Alberta to address local infrastructure priorities; and
• announced the consideration of up to $25 million in new funding for the Calgary Exhibition and Stampede Western Legacy Expansion Project."

Great. But, I wonder why, in the midst of all these impressive numbers and makeover promises, I see no mention of ways to improve the lives of the 3400+ homeless Calgarians. Or the 22 000+ Calgarians who live below the Poverty Line (Hi!).

Why do I see no mention of money towards subsidies, or any programs to address the needs of these people? Why is there no talk of "funding" towards the ridiculous rent prices the city has recently seen in these "prosperous" months - an issue which has put countless Full Time (minimum wage, or slightly more) workers on the street. Rent Control? Shelters? Where's the money to address our educational needs?

The Calgary Zoo? I assure you, the Calgarians below the poverty line won't be sharing in any "improvements" to it - not at $18 admission. Heritage Park? $13.95.

I went through the entire letter, and a notable portion of Calgarians - and their needs - weren't mentioned at all. I guess they just don't exist to Mr. Prentice's Grand Government.

I'm reminded of a Political Cartoon I clipped out of the paper while I was still in High School. It was during the time when Calgarians - and our leaders - were in a tizzy over the possibility of our city losing our precious Flames (Hockey Team). We were all encouraged to buy season tickets as soon as we could to feed the pocketbooks of a group of indulged, egomaniac athletes, to prevent the dismantling of one of our proudest sources of entertainment. And, in the midst of all of this, one shrewd artist gave us a cartoon that stays with me even to this day: A billboard screams, "Save Our Flames" while directly below, the crumpled form of a homeless man sleeps sitting up on a bench in the cold.