Muffins worth their weight in gold? The problem with urban-chic food

I was in an artsy kind of bakery in Victoria, BC, today to meet someone. I have been having a bit of a cold lately, so I walked up to the counter in a haze of cough medicine and sniffles. I wanted breakfast and a latte - something to fill me up for the next 3 to 4 hours. Then I looked at the prices of the muffins. CAD$3. Per muffin. Not huge muffins. Not muffins made of gold. Just your standard muffin. Three freaking dollars. So I paid the three dollars to have a banana hazelnut muffin that was good, but frankly, not worth $3. All this got me thinking of price inflation on things considered urban-chic. Good Lord.

I'm not against having artsy bakeries that sell vegan-friendly food that is oh-so-wholesome and good for you. But if you think that adding a few seeds to your bread, or that having something freshly-baked justifies a twice-the-price increase - then this is when it becomes problematic.

Think about it, though: bakeries are meant to sell freshly baked bread. And seeds are not that expensive. Neither is going whole-wheat. Gluten-free might need a slight price increase, but in my experience, people tend to triple the price for gluten-free products. So why are we surrounded by baked goods that cost five times what they should? Why are we paying for lattes that are triple the price of what they should be? And the answer, my friends, is the fad about what food or drinks are considered urban-chic.

Let me demonstrate:
Buying an apple from the grocery store costs you maybe $1, usually less. Now let's take that apple, slice it up, cover it in sugar and cinnamon (which are both very cheap) and bake it with some crumble on top (again, crumble is quite cheap, being a mixture of even parts of flour, butter, oats and sugar). Now, how much does this baked dessert cost you in a bakery? $6, at least. I know you need to factor in labour and energy gone into producing this baked treat, but the fact remains that it is way overpriced. Now, put that baked treat in a fancy window inside a rustic-looking bakery with wood furniture and a fancy glass water dispenser, and the dessert might actually cost closer to $8. The question is: how did we let this happen? How have people everywhere conspired to pay way too much for their creature comforts? I think it's because the price somehow indicates prestige to us. We see a hefty price for a baked good, and suddenly we think that that will be THE best baked good we've ever had. The most wholesome, healthy, and fresh baked good. The best-quality roasted espresso and the most expensive damned milk on the market. We aren't just buying ourselves something to eat, we are buying something urban-chic that will prove to others that we care about our bodies and that we are not afraid to spend in order to take care of it.

But all that fancy food will go through our system the same way everything else does. It all gets turned into poop. And yes, it might have been marginally better for your health. But at its most basic, you are still eating carbs. Whole-wheat carbs, gluten-free carbs, seven-grain carbs...still carbs.

So, the next time you go to buy your FAVOURITE muffin at your FAVOURITE bakery, think about what exactly you are buying: are you buying something that is worth what it costs, or are you buying prestige?

Copping out: The problem with Frozen's storyline

So I just read a couple of very opinionated film reviews re: Frozen. And while I don't entirely agree or disagree with the authors (as any critical reader is likely to do), I do have a bone to pick about Frozen myself.

First of all, while some of the songs and characters were great, it did come off as a tad cheesy. Maybe all Disney movies have a bit of cheesiness to them, I don't know. I guess watching Disney movies as an adult really changes the way I look them. No longer am I looking for fun and happily ever after - I look at the things the characters say, and the plot line. I guess it's also part of being an English literature enthusiast - nothing escapes scrutiny when it comes to plot and character development!

Secondly, I felt that the ending, with Hans turning out to be a bad guy so that Anna could be with Kristoff, was a complete cop-out. I almost admired the choice to have Anna presented with conflicting love interests - I mean, isn't it something we experience at least once in our lifetimes? But after it was revealed that Anna just HAD to neatly end up with one man, I saw Hans's transformation into the villain of the story as rather deus-ex-machina-esque. It's as if the writers suddenly realized: "Wait! What have we done! Crap, now we gotta get rid of one of them!" There was no intelligent choice made on Anna's part - or even the choice to wait a few years before she decides on who to end up with - before the movie decides that yep, she's gonna end up with Kristoff. Sorry, Hans. Maybe you'll get a chance to be a good guy the next time around. All I'm saying is, the choice to make him a villain was completely unnecessary.

Thirdly, when Anna comes after her insanely powerful but (well-intentioned?) sister Elsa, she gets chased away by a snow golem. A deadly snow golem who nearly KILLS Anna. Of course, this would never actually happen in a Disney movie, but we have to consider what Elsa's intentions are. Was she trying to kill her sister? Or just injure her for life? I guess we'll never know, because Anna miraculously survives with no physical harm whatsoever!

I know Disney is geared towards children. I know that. But I think that Disney needs to get ballsy with their choices, the way they used to. Characters like Mulan, who question whether their actions are inspired by selfishness or caring. Endings like The Hunchback of Notre Dame, which aren't 100% happy, but carry a strong message in that choice of ending. Moments like the death of Mufasa, that portray family connection much better than a silly true love's kiss. And songs like Beauty and the Beast's "There's Something There" that portray love as a gradual, getting-to-know-you thing that happens over time.

I loved Disney growing up. I still do. And I want to keep loving it. I just need a reason to do so.

A letter to missionaries: Please respect my non-religious faith

Today I was approached by missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I don't mind people sharing their religious views...when I know them, and when the topic turns towards religion. I do, however, mind it when random people in the street approach me, asking me if I pray, if I believe in God, and tell me that God knows my name and cares for me. Why? I have several reasons. I think I will write this in letter-form, as it best captures my feelings.

Dear missionaries,

First of all, in a world that relies so heavily on technology, and in a world where information is so accessible, I already know what Mormonism is, and what they believe in - enough so that I don't need random strangers telling me about it. If I want to know more about your religion, I will look it up online, thank you very much. Give me your info card, tell me to have a good day, and please move on. I have spent a good 5 years when I was younger questioning my faith - and it's taken me a long time to feel like I can accept not believing in religion. I believe in God - but not religion. I don't need you to tell me what God does, and what God is. It's a personal question. I don't think it would be acceptable to go around asking people if they are currently sexually active - this, to me, is the same as asking them if they believe in God. In other words, it's none of your bloody business.

Secondly, I am uncomfortable telling you about my beliefs because I know that you are judging me, or trying to convert me. Your efforts are purely towards getting me to believe that you are right about God. You are not approaching me in order to have an open-minded discussion about God and religion - you are approaching me to tell me how right you are, and how I should change what I believe so that I, too, can be right. I have the feeling that if I start to criticize or question your religion, you would not like it. Why? Perhaps because we don't know each other. Perhaps because it would feel like a personal attack. So, then, think about it: if you would feel that way about me questioning your faith, how do you imagine I feel when you are questioning mine?

Thirdly, you ask me if I would be interested in joining a group of people who are my age to go to church, right after I tell you that I am not a church-goer, and that I am not religious. I feel insulted by your suggestion, because by telling me this, you are implying that I would be interested in the social aspect of religion more than I would in the inner faith part of it. It's as if you're telling me: "Oh, well, I guess if you don't go to church for your soul, then at least you can go to make some friends! That way you can still be saved!" It seems pretty clear to me that if I tell you that I am not a church-goer, and not religious, then you should back off and preach your suggestions to someone else.

Fourthly, after all this, you then ask me if I know anyone WHO MIGHT NEED HELP. Do you know what you have just asked me, indirectly? You have just asked me: "Do you have any non-believer friends who are clearly depressed because they are non-believers, and who need our God?" Yeah, because you assume that I hang out with a bunch of non-believers like me who CLEARLY NEED HELP. Again, although you might not mean to insult me, your implications ARE in fact very insulting. By using the word "help," you imply that we are lacking something, and that you have just the thing to make us better. So, my answer to that is: no, I don't know anyone who needs HELP. And even if I did, I'm not giving their name or contact info to a random stranger I met on the street who just thoroughly insulted me. Not a chance.

Lastly, please learn how to read body language. I was clearly not enjoying our chat, despite the polite smile on my face. I could not wait for you to finish and leave me alone. If you see someone feeling uncomfortable about the subject of discussion, you STOP TALKING. You do not, in fact, continue to make them squirm by pushing on with your agenda, because it accomplishes nothing. In fact, it might even make them like you less - which is exactly what happened. If you had stopped with your first three sentences: "Hi, how's it going? We're missionaries. Here's our website if you want to check it out," then I would have probably liked you much, much more. As a result of you pushing on past three or four personal questions, however, I have come to dislike you.

I understand the need for religion. I do. And I have great respect for those who can be religious and respectful of others who have different beliefs. I have some very good friends who are religious, and I love them. I love them not because they are religious, and I love them not in spite of it. In fact, my love for them is not connected whatsoever to their religiousness. We get along because they can understand where I come from when I tell them that I have my own beliefs, and that I am not likely to agree with them on their views of the world. I am accepting of their views of the world, and they are accepting of mine. So, please, if you are a missionary, learn how to be respectful of others who are not religious. We do not need your "help." And we don't need you to question us. Because I can guarantee you that most of us have already questioned ourselves. And for many of us, being non-religious is a choice that is just as difficult as being religious. It takes a lot of faith.

Schools and teachers: Not always to blame

We all know that Ken Robinson famously talked about how schools kill creativity. I agree with a lot of the things he says. Yes, we do place a hierarchy on subjects. Yes, people seem to not value the arts as much as anything else. And yes, we are forcing children through a system that tries to produce university students and professors. I do believe that not everyone is suited for university - it is not the so-called "logical" step to take after graduating high school. But let's take a step back from the whole "the system-is-the-problem" approach. Being a teacher myself, I would like to share some of my views. I'd like to focus on some of the things that school should NOT be to blame when:

1. Students are apathetic and refuse to work no matter what type of assignment you throw their way. Honestly, it's not the teacher sometimes, or the work assigned, or the subject matter. Sometimes it is the student, and his/her lack of caring for anything. And I mean anything.

2. Students are not ready for college or university. Oh, you mean that a school is not to blame if a student goes to university and fails so badly that they have to drop out? You mean that that student's French teacher and English teacher cannot be blamed for the student's inability to keep up with the material at the collegiate level? In most cases, you're damned right they're not to blame. I keep hearing people tell me about "terrible" teachers they had in high school. Sometimes the stories are legit. And sometimes they're pure bullshit. It's just easier for some students to foist their failures onto the shoulders of someone else. If you ask me, this generation has a lot to learn about responsibility.

3. Students are unable to take care of themselves when they graduate from high school. But isn't it the job of home ec teachers to give students cooking skills, and isn't the job of all teachers to make sure that students have the proper work ethic? NO. Bloody hell NO. Teachers have enough on their plate already. Students need to learn how to cook an egg at home. Their parents should have taught them how to manage money and do their laundry. Honestly, schools can only reinforce what is taught at home. If parents do their job properly, then I think there would be fewer clueless college students who don't know how to cook or even act like a decent human being.

I know schools do play a huge role in education. And so do teachers. But there's only so much teachers and schools can do. The ratio of students to teachers is usually pretty high, and if students aren't getting what they need at home, then they will fall by the wayside.

For those of you who go around griping about your teachers from high school, think again: was the teacher really the problem? Or could you have done something more proactive for your OWN education? Think about that.

Being in the Grey: Why I hate the term "feminism"

So here is what I just read today: Nicki Daniels's offensive "letter" to bearded hipsters. And her equally offensive "apology." Nicki claims that men who grow beards just to get the "look" of being masculine without actually being masculine should stop growing beards. Because she likes her men REAL. And a REAL man is symbolized through the presence of a BEARD. Wow. Great reason for hating on bearded guys who also like to wear bowties and sip lattes. While Nicki's post is disturbing (because she is pretty much telling men that in order to be "real" men they need to learn how to change tires and use a wrench), I find some of the backlash to her post just as disturbing.

The more I hear and read the word "patriarchy," the more I have to stifle my gag reflex. While the idea of a patriarchy is completely accounted for and explained, I have issues with the way it's used to back a virulent agenda of blaming. Shaming and blaming. This is what the whole battle of sexism has come to: shaming and blaming. And although many feminists do cloak their anger under a facade of reason and amicability, you know that the moment a feminist asks you about your stance on feminism, you had better fucking say you're totally for it. Otherwise? Judgment. Shaming. Condescension.

And what is so wrong about questioning and refusing labels, now that we've come to this whole topic? What if Nicki Daniels stopped trying to label men, and what if deluded feminists stopped trying to label people as either "feminist" or "misogynist?" I'm going to come out and say it: I HATE the word "feminism." And I would hate calling myself a feminist. Why? Maybe I'm being picky, but I tend to look at all the levels of nuance in the meaning of a word. "Feminist" does not say "Hey, I'm comfortable with my gender and I am proud of who I am, and I don't believe in gender or sex discrimination" - no - rather, it says, "Hey, I think women are oppressed and that men and women alike need to admit how oppressed women are and that women are important; it's all about women." Generalizations like "we live in a patriarchy" ANGER me because it seems like a cop-out - a way to explain the struggles of all women, everywhere. I would rather hear statements like "What you just said is sexist." It tackles sexism on a case-to-case basis. It doesn't exaggerate the problem. And it doesn't, in turn, become a problem that tries to fight the problem.

Wait a minute, you might say, so you're trying to tell us that you DON'T think we live in a world that privileges men? My answer to that is: in many cases, I think that women are at a disadvantage, yes. But I wouldn't go so far as to generalize that every aspect of our lives privileges men. In fact, in some cases, I think the reverse is true. Now, am I saying that therefore, we shouldn't have to worry about striving for equal rights and treatment? Absolutely not. What I AM saying, though, is that we need to calm the fuck down. Angry words and name-calling and finger pointing are things that a five-year-old does before they know any better. If you are getting behind the banner of feminism, then do it for the right reason. And get behind the right banner, for starters. Some feminists have no clue what untold damage they're doing. Having an identity is important, I know, but that identity doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing. Just like human sexuality, you can get behind an idea or movement to varying degrees of acceptance.

I was once told by a friend that an "egalitarian" is just another label for people who are against the feminist agenda. We supposedly perpetuate the hierarchy of the (*gag*) "patriarchy." But I have no shame in saying that if you wanted to give me a label, I'd take "egalitarian" way before I'd take "feminist." But let's just be honest. I wouldn't take either. You know my position. Don't be afraid to tell others your position. And don't be ashamed just because you don't have a label for it. Be comfortable in the grey.