She might be Ginger...

Gut, a new web based literary zine, has published a piece of my flash fiction!  Yummy!

http://gutlit.com/

Photo from the Sex and the City movie

Same sex marriage is a hot topic these days.  Personally, I don’t see how, from a human rights point of view, there can be any argument against it.   A society cannot claim to be equal and fair without giving the LGBT community the exact same rights as straight people, which includes the right to legal matrimony.   Or, to quote the fabulous Margaret Cho: “A government that would deny a gay man the right to bridal registry is a fascist state.”

However, lately I have been questioning the point of wedding ceremonies, period – straight, gay or otherwise.  Turn on the TV and you will find yourself bombarded with reality programs dedicated to that “one special day” – Say Yes to the Dress, Bulging Brides and Bridezillas to name just a few – along with jewelry advertisements meant to shame men into throwing away a couple of months salary on what is essentially a small stone (the average cost of an engagement ring in 2009 came to $5,487, according to the fourth annual The Knot Real Weddings Survey).

All that emotional and financial stress for what turns out to be ONE DAY???!!!

So here are my top three reasons for why, as a society, we should phase out the concept of wedding ceremonies:

Want to alienate your friends and family?  Throw a wedding!

Type “wedding family drama” into Google and you will turn up 2,460,000 results.   Inconvenient travel and sleeping arrangements, snubbed guests, resurgence of decade long family feuds – not to mention the crime of forcing your BFFs into tacky bridesmaid dresses – all it takes is one day to bring out the animosity in your friends and family.

Weddings are the quickest way to financial debt.

According to the website My Canadian Wedding.com, the average cost of a wedding in Canada is $20,000 to $30,000 and can be higher if planned in a major city such as Toronto.   Now throw in the aforementioned engagement ring along with honey moon travel plans and you’ll be crying all the way FROM the bank.   And it is not just the happy couple who will face lighter wallets –friends and family will also share some of the financial burden via travel, bridal registry, tux rentals and bridesmaid dresses (see reason #1).

Wedding ceremonies are BORING.

This is an indisputable fact.   Wedding receptions on the other hand are usually quite fun.   So how about replacing wedding ceremonies with “love parties” instead?   Invite your friends over for a fun party to celebrate your devotion to your sweetheart and then kick them all out at the end of the night so that the two of you can celebrate alone together (if you catch my drift) - after all, a vibrating ring is much cheaper than an engagement ring.

Last week the Toronto Sun had its panties in a knot over the newly opened homeless shelter on Peter street. 

Sun columnist Sue-Ann Levy, second only to Rob Ford in her hatred of all things gravy related, dubbed the shelter “The Homeless Hilton” in her November 2nd column -http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/sueann_levy/2010/11/02/15927301.html

The “Cadillac services” (Levy’s term) that the shelter will offer to its homeless clients include nutritious meals (gasp!), psychiatric and medical support (shock!), and housing plans and life skills training (oh, the horror!).   However, what really gets Levy’s blood boiling are the “two spanking new tiled washrooms…outfitted with showers and laundry service for those clients who need to freshen up before they are taken to view apartments.”  

“Honest to goodness,” Levy whines, oops, I mean writes, “I have nothing against street people accessing proper showers or toileting facilities. But it just shows where the priorities of the David Miller regime have been when so much city money is spent on ensuring the homeless have proper facilities while those taxpaying citizens who visit our Beach are forced to use decrepit, rusty, broken down toilets and sinks.”

Well, honest to goodness, I have nothing against the idea of fixing or replacing “decrepit” toilets and sinks in the Beach, however as a working class, tax paying citizen, I would have to question the “priorities” of those who would think that providing more comforts to the middle and upper classes takes precedence over providing basics to the homeless - basic neccessities that the rest of us take for granted but which will help them to improve thier situation and eventually become taxpayers themselves. 

Sure, giving spare change to some homeless dude might make you feel better than reading Levy’s claim that taxpayers “will be on the hook for 3.3 million per year” to run the Peter St. shelter’s staff of 30+ social workers, but as any successful business owner will tell you, you have to spend money in order to make money.  Besides, a large part of the reason that we pay taxes is to ensure that services and programs are put in place to help us, should we become ill, unemployed or poverty ridden.  And according to a September 2010 poll taken by the Canadian Payroll Association, poverty is a very real threat to many working Canadians: the poll found that 6 in 10 Canadians survive paycheck to paycheck.   59% would be in financial trouble if their paycheck was delayed by just one week.  Which means that 59% of Canadian taxpayers are in danger of becoming homeless themselves.

The conservative minded will tell you that all the homeless have to do is “pull themselves up by their bootstraps.”   However, the fact is that if a person literally tried to “pull themselves up by the bootstraps”, they would fall face down in the dirt.

“People who haven’t red hair don’t know what trouble is.” - Anne of Green Gables

In 1970, Kermit the Frog sang “It’s not easy being green…” though most auburn haired children would counter with “It’s not easy being red”.  

Throughout history, redheads have had to endure the myths and prejudices regarding the fiery hue of our tresses- we are believed to be bad tempered at best, the devil’s spawn at worst.  

Ancient Egyptians regarded the color red as unlucky - red haired women were burned to death and sometimes even buried alive.  The ginger-hate wasn’t confined to Egypt: during the Spanish Inquision, red haired people were believed to have stolen the fire of hell and therefore were burned as witches.  In Greece, Aristotle described redheads as being “emotionally un-housebroken” (probably many of my ex-boyfriends would agree with him), conversely, the Romans kept redhaired slaves at a higher price. 

In 2010, ginger-bashing is still prevalent with the popularity of “Kick a Ginger” days in Canadian middle schools.

Even Mother Nature doesn’t care for us: bees are believed to sting redheads more than non-redheads, while in 2007, National Geographic reported that less than 2 percent of the world’s population have natural red hair with experts warning that redheads could become extinct by the year 2060.   Perhaps the result of all those witch burnings? 

Growing up with red hair, I had very few contemporary role models, unless you count Peg Bundy; the brash, whiny and over-sexed bon-bon eating housewife on Married…with Children (although I actually always thought Peg was kinda hot).   In the late 90’s and early part of the millenium, things started looking up with the success of smart and sexy ginger actresses Julianne Moore and Debra Messing, though these positive images were tempered by the sheer heartbreak of natural redheads Nicole Kidman and Lindsay Lohan dying their hair blonde. 

So when Mad Men premiered on July 19th, 2007, introducing us to its resident bombshell Joan Holloway, it was a time for redhaired women everywhere to rejoice- for the first time in history, the sexiest woman on primetime wasn’t blonde but unmistakeably flamehaired.   As redheads, we are indebted to Christina Hendricks, the actress who portrays Joan.   Ms. Hendricks is a natural blonde who, after being inspired by the novel Anne of Green Gables, started dying her hair red at the age of 10.   Christina Hendricks would still be as sexy and successful with her natural blonde locks (heck, she’d still be sexy with a bald head) but she chose to act as an ally to us redheads, and for that, I thank her.  

All hail Christina Hendricks - benefactor of Gingers! 

In the upcoming election for Mayor of Toronto, the media would like you to believe that Torontonians have one of two candidates to choose from -

Rob Ford and George “at least I’m not Rob Ford” Smitherman. 

Which is kind of like having to choose between Coca Cola or Pepsi (or to be more crude, it kind of feels like having to choose between diarrhea and constipation). 

However, we DO have a choice on October 25th and Joe Pantalone be thy name!

Don’t take my word for it- check his policy out for yourself at http://www.mayorjoe.ca/policy/

Personally, I’m loving his “Plan for Food Prosperity”, “Art and Culture Capital Plan” and the “Plan to Support Torontonians at Every Age” (YES!).  

All I am saying is “Give Pants a Chance!”

Hollywood has always had a conditional-love relationship with poverty - the poor are adored so long as their conditions are temporary. It’s a curious attitude that was recently most prevalent in the Will Smith vehicle “The Pursuit of Happyness” in which the lesson taught seemed to be along the lines of “Homeless People = Bad, Overfed Stockbrokers = Good”.

So when an empathetic (as opposed to sympathetic) movie highlighting the plight of the working poor comes along, it is both refreshing and important. “Wendy and Lucy” is such a film.

Directed by Kelly Reichardt and starring Michelle Williams, “Wendy and Lucy” tells the story of Wendy, a young woman driving across the country with her beloved dog Lucy to Alaska in search of employment. Shortly after her car breaks down in a small town, and due in part to an empty bag of kibble, Wendy loses Lucy and spends the next three days desperately trying to find her friend - a search made no easier by Wendy’s lack of a phone, transportation and shelter, not to mention her quickly dwindling savings.

“Wendy and Lucy” is a quiet movie whose impact is as loud as guns.

Reichardt has a knack for capturing tiny moments that hide a larger message - moments such as the car mechanic not bothering to look at Wendy when he speaks to her.
As for Williams, she delivers an incredibly thoughtful and compassionate performance. ‘Wendy’ could not have been an easy character to play - she never allows herself to completely break down and instead moves through her unravelling life with a strong and quiet dignity. Portrayed by Williams with an unsentimental respect, Wendy’s emotions are shown almost strictly through her eyes and face - a mask of strain and stress that reaches the viewer in a way that hysterics would not.

Those who have found themselves in economic hardship will commisserate with Wendy, however the film is a must-see for those in more comfortable settings who alienate themselves from the poor and point the finger of blame towards poverty. According to the conservative way of thinking, Wendy is doing everything right - she is looking for work; never putting a hand out or asking for outside assistance, and yet she is one of many who find themselves slipping through the cracks of society. “Wendy and Lucy” is an important lesson on class and society - one that our culture may need now more than ever.

(Wendy and Lucy is now available on DVD and Rogers On Demand)