delicious smoothie recipe

We randomly made this one day and found it worthy of writing down. I
now share it with you. In Ontario at some point in the summer, these
were localish ingredients, I think. Enjoy!

1 celery stalk
1 beet
1 ripe peach
1 ripe pear
1 kale stalk
unsweetened soy milk

Re: Fw: THE GREEN THING!!!!

Listen, anonymous author, the current generation doesn't lament anything.  It's hard to define the group, let alone claim they/we all think the same way about anything, same as "the old generation," which was hoodwinked by the real wasters the same as the old generation.  I agree with many of the points of this e-mail, but to conclude with a divisive tone isn't helpful in my opinion--I think all generations have more in common than this forward's author would imply, and this just suggests that older folks ought to resent younger folks, instead of uniting with them against the greedy machine that is and has been accelerating the ruin of the planet since before any now-living person was born.

On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 7:42 AM, ... wrote:

SO TRUE!!!!! > THE GREEN THING > In the line at the store, the young cashier told the older woman that she > should > bring her own grocery bag because plastic bags weren't good for the > environment. > The woman apologized to him and explained, > "We didn't have the green thing back in my day." > > The clerk responded, "That's our problem today. > The former generation did not care enough to save our environment." > > He was right, that generation didn't have the green thing in its day. > Back then, they returned their milk bottles, > soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. > The store sent them back to the plant to be washed > and sterilized and refilled, > so it could use the same bottles over and over. > So they really were recycled. > > But they didn't have the green thing back in that customer's day. > > In her day, they walked up stairs, > because they didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. > They walked to the grocery store and > didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine > every time they had to go two blocks. > > But she was right. They didn't have the green thing in her day. > > Back then, they washed the baby's diapers > because they didn't have the throw-away kind. > They dried clothes on a line, > not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts - > wind and solar power really did dry the clothes. > Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, > not always brand-new clothing. > > But that old lady is right, they didn't have the green thing back in her > day. > > Back then, they had one TV, or radio, in the house - > not a TV in every room. > And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief, > not a screen the size of the state of Montana. > In the kitchen, they blended and stirred by hand because > they didn't have electric machines to do everything for you. > When they packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, > they used a wadded up old newspaper to cushion it, > not styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. > > Back then, they didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline > just to cut the lawn. They used a push mower that ran on human power. > They exercised by working so they didn't need to go to a health club > to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. > > But she's right, they didn't have the green thing back then. > > They drank from a fountain when they were thirsty > instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time > they had a drink of water. > They refilled their writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, > and they replaced the razor blades in a razor > instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. > > But they didn't have the green thing back then. > > Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus > and kids rode their bikes to school or walked > instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service. > They had one electrical outlet in a room, > not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. > And they didn't need a computerized gadget > to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space > in order to find the nearest pizza joint. > > But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful the old folks > were just because they didn't have the green thing back then? > WOW!!!!!!!!!!! >

Re: an open letter re: GMO foods[00048E9A-1031-00000000] file 924579

Hello Julie,

Thank you for taking the time to respond. If you could copy your
supervisor on your reply, I'd appreciate that. It feels to me as if I
received a form letter response, which did very little to address my
concerns, and other parts of the content seem to have ignored things
that I already acknowledged.

If Loblaw Companies has such a responsibility as you mention, then why
did the Globe and Mail report in 2001 that Nature's Path Foods, Inc.
had it demanded of them to remove their GMO/GE labeling or risk losing
its suppliership with Loblaw Companies? This voluntary standard your
company helped develop and publish in 2004 is just that: voluntary.
So your company can be completely in compliance with said standard (by
not labeling) and still pressure companies not to label, like in 2001.
Is this correct?

If Loblaw Companies is so interested in providing choices, then why is
this voluntary standard never voluntarily followed? The *only* way I
can tell if something happens to have GE'd food in it or not is if
it's certified organic. For those who can't afford certified organic
but want to be part of the segment of the market that's non-GE but not
completely certified, what choice have you left them? You might argue
that this has been done in the interest of a level playing field, but
instead it has polarized it into rich and poor.

What of people who care enough to learn about what they're eating, and
are not okay with some GE food but fine with others? Without
mentioning which ingredients are GE, they are unable to purchase these
things at your stores. Since your stores make up the vast majority of
the Canadian market, I'd say that the power that that brings also
brings the responsibility to let people decide. You might say,
everyone can choose to be your customer or not. Well, sort of. If
you're rich enough, you can have your food brought to you from
wherever you want. Otherwise, you may be stuck with the nearest
supermarket, which is almost always one of yours. This maybe doesn't
feel as super as it once did, when the previous generation decided to
spend their dollars at supermarkets instead of local stores until the
local stores went out of business.

Personally I am willing to go out of my way to go to stores that
actually offer me more choice. I have to admit, when things get busy
in my life, that choice often is very difficult, or even impossible,
to make, depending on where I live and my access to transportation.
Nonetheless, until I see some actual responsibility being taken in
this regard by my local Loblaw-owned supermarket, I will increasingly
be trying my hardest to shop at other stores. I'm already making
trips there just to be able to find food actually or produced
relatively near by, namely produce and dairy products. The thing is,
the economic pressure you have put on your suppliers affects even what
I'm able to buy at stores that you don't own, because they supply to
them as well. What should your suppliers do, run two separate product
lines, one for Loblaws and one for everyone else? Sure, they could,
and then of course their costs and prices go up to cover this expense,
and their products are less competitive. So even if they try not to
let you bully them, you are still bullying them. Could you explain to
me how this lines up with your "shar[ing of my] concern about this
issue"?

Sincerely,
Kevin Field

On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 2:14 PM, customerservice@loblaws.ca
<customerservice@loblaws.ca> wrote:
> Dear Mr. Field,
>
> Thank you for taking the time to write to us.
>
> Loblaw Companies has the responsibility to deliver reliable and meaningful information to consumers.  We place great importance on the integrity of products sold in our stores.  Our responsibility is to guarantee freshness, quality, and accuracy of labeling of all products on our shelves.
>
> In 2004 the Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB) published the "Voluntary Labeling and Advertising of Foods that are and are not products of genetic engineering" standard.  This standard was developed as a joint initiative of CGSB and the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors of which Loblaw Companies is a member.   Accordingly, we ensure that all products on our shelves comply with this standard.
>
> We share your concern about this issue.  However, I am sure you can also appreciate that as a retailer, it is important to act responsibly according to well-defined government standards, and to offer consumers a variety of choices. Loblaw Companies recognizes the diverse needs and preferences of our customers and we strive to offer many choices to meet those needs. That's why we are proud to carry a wide variety of Organic products that are offered throughout all Loblaw Companies affiliated stores; and many stores have Natural Value departments dedicated to providing customers with both organic and naturally produced products.  As you may know, each organic product adheres strictly to Canadian and International organic production standards, which include a prohibition on using genetically engineered material.  Each organic product is also certified by independent third-parties to provide additional assurance that the organic standards are met.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Julie Dunham
> Sr. Coordinator, Communications I LCL Customer Relations
>
> 1 President's Choice Circle | Brampton | Ontario | L6Y 5S5
> (905) 459-2500 Ext. 613293 | F: (905) 861-2387| julie.dunham@loblaw.ca
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Field
> Sent: March 2, 2011 7:55 PM
> To: CR Email Agent 10
> Subject: an open letter re: GMO foods[00048E9A-1031-00077EE0]
>
> Dear Loblaws,
>
> I'm an old customer of your products, particularly in Zehrs and valu
> mart stores.  I heard that you have pressured your suppliers not to
> include claims of being GMO-free.  While I understand there's no
> Canadian government standard for labeling at this time, I do not agree
> with this strategy.  I want to know more about the food that I'm
> buying, and in my opinion, some labels are better than none at all.
> At least then independent researchers can investigate claims of being
> GMO-free, as they currently do with green products.  I find it
> irresponsible to blame the government for lack of a standard, while
> simultaneously stymieing your supplier's efforts.  It simply takes
> control, or the possibility of it, away from the public.
>
> Especially now that I have a small child in my care, and given that
> the long-term effects of GMOs are currently unknown, I have been
> lately buying, and will continue to buy, less and less PC and no name
> products while this issue continues.  I appreciate the emergence of PC
> Organics brands, but bullying your suppliers for advertising the fact
> that their products are GMO-free I feel reveals different intentions.
> So if you're only catering to the market, and not necessarily to the
> well-being of your customers, well, you're losing this individual's
> business, at least.
>
> I will voice to the government the opinion of the vast majority of
> Canadian consumers that we want GMO products to be labeled as such,
> but until then I'm also voicing it to you in the hopes that you start
> encouraging your suppliers to include such information, or better yet,
> discourage your suppliers from using GMO ingredients until more is
> known about the effects of their consumption, like similar chains in
> the US and EU have already done.  Don't keep Canada in the Dark Ages
> just because you have the power to do so.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Kevin Field
> Ontario resident
>
>
>
> This email message is confidential, may be legally privileged and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. If you received this message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should destroy the email message and any attachments or copies, and you are prohibited from retaining, distributing, disclosing or using any information contained. Please inform us of the delivery error by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
>
> Le présent message électronique est confidentiel et peut être couvert par le secret professionnel. Il est à l'usage exclusif du destinataire. Si vous recevez ce message par erreur ou si vous n'en êtes pas le destinataire prévu, vous devez détruire le message et toute pièce jointe ou copie et vous êtes tenu de ne pas conserver, distribuer, divulguer ni utiliser tout renseignement qu'il contient. Veuillez nous informer de toute erreur d'envoi en répondant à ce message. Merci de votre collaboration
>

an open letter re: GMO foods

Dear Loblaws,

I'm an old customer of your products, particularly in Zehrs and valu
mart stores. I heard that you have pressured your suppliers not to
include claims of being GMO-free. While I understand there's no
Canadian government standard for labeling at this time, I do not agree
with this strategy. I want to know more about the food that I'm
buying, and in my opinion, some labels are better than none at all.
At least then independent researchers can investigate claims of being
GMO-free, as they currently do with green products. I find it
irresponsible to blame the government for lack of a standard, while
simultaneously stymieing your supplier's efforts. It simply takes
control, or the possibility of it, away from the public.

Especially now that I have a small child in my care, and given that
the long-term effects of GMOs are currently unknown, I have been
lately buying, and will continue to buy, less and less PC and no name
products while this issue continues. I appreciate the emergence of PC
Organics brands, but bullying your suppliers for advertising the fact
that their products are GMO-free I feel reveals different intentions.
So if you're only catering to the market, and not necessarily to the
well-being of your customers, well, you're losing this individual's
business, at least.

I will voice to the government the opinion of the vast majority of
Canadian consumers that we want GMO products to be labeled as such,
but until then I'm also voicing it to you in the hopes that you start
encouraging your suppliers to include such information, or better yet,
discourage your suppliers from using GMO ingredients until more is
known about the effects of their consumption, like similar chains in
the US and EU have already done. Don't keep Canada in the Dark Ages
just because you have the power to do so.

Sincerely,

Kevin Field
Ontario resident

sesame snaps

I stole this from somewhere in the hintersnet and paraphrased it.

2 c sesame seeds
.5 c brown sugar
.5 c honey
.5 tsp (or whatever) cinnamon, ginger powder, powdered nutmeg, and/or
clove powder

Get out about 1m of parchment paper and a rolling pin, a large mixing
bowl, a spatula, and a large frying pan on medium heat.

Put the seeds into the frying pan, then get the sugar+spice and honey
ready.  Then stir the seeds constantly so they don't burn.  Pretty
soon after you can smell them, they should be turning golden.  Empty
them into the mixing bowl (I'd use a spatula to get every last seed,
so they don't end up under your stove element) and leave the heat on.
Put the rest of the ingredients in the pan, mixing constantly.  Cook a
minute after it boils, then empty the pan into the mixing bowl and
quickly mix everything thoroughly and put it out onto half the
parchment, then fold the other half of the parchment paper over top
and use the rolling pin (hurry hard!  like curling...) to flatten it
as much as possible.

Let sit for 10-20 minutes, then the paper should just peel off and you
can break the snaps into pieces.  I would peel it off the bottom too
before breaking, that way you can do a second batch (of course you'll
want to do a second batch...), having hopefully not broken your
parchment paper.  :-)  Sugary remnants come off the pan much easier if
you soak it in water.  Alternatively, if you're doing many batches,
you could use two pans, one for seeds, one for sugary stuff.  The seed
one will barely need washing anyway, because nothing should stick.

If you have one of those silicon ice-cube trays (like we have one with
heart shapes) you can make these into special shape cookies instead of
bark-style pieces if you want.

I hear these keep a long time, but so far their deliciousness factor
has prevented me from confirming this first-hand.

Recap:

0. get parchment and rolling pin ready
1. toast seeds, set aside
2. boil everything else 1 minute
3. quickly mix all
4. quickly pour
5. quickly roll flat
6. let cool
7. break into pieces of awesome
7b. yay no plastic packaging!  look at you go!

Love,
Kev

CBC News - Canada - Ont. farm accused of not paying migrant workers

From CBC News - Canada - Ont. farm accused of not paying migrant workers:

We were told there was a shortage of berry plants, but there is an abundance of plants, so there are not the sales the company had anticipated.

Always great to replay The Grapes of Wrath.

Why do governments seem to always believe that money is better in the hands of banks than in the hands of the people? Ten-letter word, starts with 'C'...

Spam with "error in original"

I had to laugh.  I'm not sure why I read this particular spam message this morning, maybe just to stay up on what they look like, but this was great:

We ask that you allow at least 72 hours for the case to be investigated and we strongly recommend to verefy (sic) your account in that time.

Best Regards,
Colette Nugent
Head of Customer Communications

I wonder which "original" they were taking this from...

in response

(I tried to leave this as a comment at http://plaosmos.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html
but Google keeps giving me a Request URI Too Long error, both in
WebPositive and in Google Chrome.)

Hi Stuart,

First time reader, found your blog looking up a name, looks very interesting.

Since it provoked a response in me, and because I like what I've read of your other posts so far, I wanted to comment on #3. I'd say that this is what my theism looks like to some extent, but that the implications are not necessarily as you put them. While this view can often be an excuse for non-action, I think that's a common heresy of ours. I would say things will work out in the end regardless of what I do now in the same sense that I would say I will eventually die regardless of what I do now. I can make that reality come true sooner, or to some extent later, by my actions, but only it and taxes are guaranteed. Both the fact of death and the faith of can be acted upon in the vein of "nothing matters" or "everything matters," and possibly anywhere in between.

The way these things reconcile in my belief is with God being in favour of partnership with us, wanting us to live up to our full potential. Since we're already in Holocaust Example Land ("Godwin's Law"?), there are many instances of (particularly faith-based) non-violent opposition to the Nazi regime that ranged from pitiful to wild--I offer no guess as to what the factors were--in how successful they were. I believe God was involved in empowering the people involved in this who were willing to be empowered this way. Perhaps, then, a) we don't see, remember, or understand holy intervention as often as it occurs, and b) large-scale occurences of this are as rare as large-scale groups acting in faith coinciding with other possible factors, like oppressors that truly would not change their minds. If the whole thing is designed for our learning and growth into a non-oppressive humanity, who is to say what the best path is, besides an omniscient God?

I think God allows our oppression and its natural effects, but that it weighs heavily on God's heart during this time in between creation and the day when we will have learned to overcome the fears that cause us to oppress one another by asking God to heal and empower (read: "save") us individually and as the human race.

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. All the best to you, I hope I have more time to read your backblog later.

Cheers,

Kev

Bible Cloud

Repentence (That's Just Wishing)

Why choose between the idols
  of anger and shame?
That's just wishing
  there's one of us to blame.
That's just wishing
  for us to be the same.
Why do I want that?

I know to love, and my heart
  needs and wants it,
but some parasite or poison I host
  would rather hate hate with hate.
It doesn't add up,
                   and I know it,
  but it sure as hell multiplies,
                   and I feel it.

Yorkshire Puddings for Phil

My mom's somehow-not-yet-world-famous--but fairly magical--recipe:


Needs 2 hours for batter in fridge.

To serve 8-10.

Use a dark metal muffin pan. [There's more magic in dark metal -K] Measure exactly.

3/4 C + 2 Tbsps all-purpose flour
3/4 - 1 tsp salt
3 extra large eggs
1 1/2 C milk
canola oil (not olive!!)

1. sift flour and salt together
2. beat eggs with whisk in a medium-sized [I'd say medium-large] bowl until thick
3. add 1/4 of the milk (about 1/3 cup) and all of the flour mix
4. beat 1/2 minute, making sure it's well combined
5. add the remaining milk
6. beat another minute (or less!)
7. refrigerate for 1-2 hours

and then

1. heat oven to 450° F, put exactly 1 Tbsp of oil in the bottom of each muffin hole, and place the muffin tin in the oven as it is heating to 450°--don't worry if oil smokes (good sign it's getting hot enough!)
   
2. when oven is 450°, take tin out and evenly distribute batter into each hole (should make 10-12)--if you can, avoid adding to an already-poured amount (will not rise)
3. bake 15-17 min or until puffed/brown

To true freedom and family

Something like:

Well, it's been smooth sailing
On the world's high-
                    in-vitamin-C's

But it's high time I sunk my
   Canadian psittacine-ship
                           teeth
Into something more

Un-American, unnational
Like a local apple
                   (unspoiled by the bunch?)
And some shared money
And less commuting and committees
And more time on my hands
For more communing and commitment
 To true freedom and family

sustainable aid versus? until? kingdom come

I was telling some friends at Out of the Cold that I hoped the program
would starting running year-round some day soon, but that some day soon
after that, it wouldn't need to run at all.

I finally got around to reading a handout from Street Level today, in
which Dave Diewert seems to be saying that targetting the former, even
on the way to the latter, can be dangerous in how it reinforces the
power inequality that prompts it in the first place.

"Well-stocked and smoothly operating foodbanks or safe and secure
overnight shelter programs are usually touted as signs of a caring
society rather than as clear signifiers of our failure to establish
true justice."

What if a mere two hundred of the thousands of our region's rich or
even middle-class households had a highways-and-biways banquet
experience like in Luke 14, but instead of many people for a one-time
party, welcomed one or two people into their families for a whole
season?

untitled poem

At the request of Neugeski One, here's something from around Dec 22, 2007. IIRC I had been reading Ishmael Beah's A Long Way Gone around then. Definitely more visual than spoken, and could use some work.

watching children die
     and then kill
maybe now I understand my parents
     even less
is this the road home
                     ?
like feathers
   falling to the floor
we flit away when hands draw near
   then resume our dreary fear-laced
                                   descent;
hands
might             oil
care,          about
or might care only
surrender, stupid or beautiful,
                  lies or lies naked
before shame

Easter poem

Hi, everyone. This is a poem-prayer of thanksgiving that came to me
one sleepless night this week. This is a bit out of the ordinary for
me. Hopefully it's worth the reading time for you. It's called, "Our
brokenness is precious, then where are you?"

You knew us.

You became like us, hoping the same,
  from the smelly, slobbery, toddling beginning:
    "Whoever receives a child like this in my name receives me,"
  through the harsh canyon of uncomprehending, utterly hopeless despair:
    "My God, my own Father, why have you abandoned me?"
  to the ever-untimely ending.

Your broken body...breathed anew!
  so that hundreds would live, and die
  so that ten-thousands would live, and...

Your blood,
  the richest mixture of dirt and life,
  transfusing into the story of your bride,
  whose body knows
    the most fantastic, ridiculous redemptions, and
    the most filthy, gangrenous hypocrisies.

You know us.
Our story.
You're with us.
We're in it.
"It's not done."

Amen.

Month of Jubilee

What if we did this every year, where we gave away all of our CDs and
books and other things we have in excess, and then had a big party to
celebrate the freedom this brings?

Reading Journal 10

(On the Canadian Woman Studies journal on soviet women and Baranskaya's A Week Like Any Other.)

If one reads the short biography at the beginning of the book, and notices the almost extreme attention to practical details, one might suspect A Week Like Any Other to be almost autobiographical. Without reading the biography, one might instead (or also?) suspect it was written by a Canadian mother: the overall pattern of relationship is very familiar to my generation, not directly, but from watching each other's parents as we grew up. Among my friends' families, those with both parents as full-time professionals, having been in love at one point and mostly maintaining that through waves of wrinkles and the occasional larger doubts, the father doing more to help the mother than the previous generation, but the mother still struggling under the weight of the majority of domestic responsibility combined with a confusing mix of pressures at work. Not only are there the "normal" stresses of work: looming deadlines and the thought of not being able to make them, fierce competition for shared resources, being unprepared for meetings, the extra stress of slip-ups like being late or misplacing important things, etc.; but also the questionnaire has Olya's female coworkers up-in-arms about whether the state would have them have more children while at the same time she almost aborted Gulka (the second of her two children) and is always worried about accidentally becoming pregnant again. Like the Canadian mothers I've seen, she bears this all as well as possible without complaining, and it drives her to two breakdowns. Not massive ones in a medical sense, perhaps, but still ones she is not able to control: she laughs maniacally to the point of tears at Lusya's finding of the graph Olya had lost, and the next day--the first of two supposed days of rest she looks forward to--she breaks down crying in front of her children and husband (when he decides he has done his share of the day's myriad chores) and cannot figure out how she could have let herself make such a scene.

It's what Kollontai had feared for the Soviet woman, and sought to remedy. What happened?

There are the children's crèche and kindergarten for Gulka and Kotka, respectively, but Dima and Olya are both aware of their lower-than-desirable quality, and for what reason: the norm is set at twenty-eight children for one supervisor and assistant. (Baranskaya's assertion here through Olya's narration that whoever set the norm obviously had never had children, or could pay for better care of them, seems to set the tone for the story as an expositive one, to some extent showing life as it is and asking for a critical look at it, hoping the state might help in some way: Lusya's comments during the questionnaire debate reflect the latter; the questionnaire itself, the former.) But the ideas of household chores, particularly mending, cooking, and cleaning, being outsourced to specialized labourers is not played out here, at least not positively. The only one of those we see is Dima's eating from a canteen, and this is always portrayed negatively: the food is never as good as Olya's.

So what's the solution? Baranskaya seems to suggest the need for a general slowdown--Muscovites are always rude and in a hurry in the few portrayals we get of them--but the question of how family life ought to work seems to be left unanswerable to some degree: the only people who have the right to come up with an answer, the working parents themselves, have very little time to think about it. Dima has a little more than Olya, and his suggestion is to throw out her career and beef up his, so that they can live better and she can spend more time with the children. After a little bit of rebuttal from Olya he admits, "Maybe I'm being selfish, I don't know. Let's drop it." (p. 60) But in the end, Olya's belt hook is still not sown back on--a recurring to-do item mentioned usually twice a day in the novella: she must finally do it today, then right before falling asleep, dammit, she has forgotten again and is much too tired to get out of bed to do it now--and the unanswered/unanswerable question, "What is the matter with me?" (p. 62) reverberates with the reader as the story comes to an end.


While the Canadian Woman Studies journal was good to read after writing the above for its inclusion of the purpose of Baranskaya's short story (in the article "Contemporary Soviet Women Writers"), it was more interesting as a divergence from our normal readings in that it included Western feminists trying to grapple with Russian culture. The articles "Soviet Women - A Canadian View" and "Sex Role Education in the USSR" were especially demonstrative of this. The former article seemed to be something of a cornerstone passage, outlining the basic conundrum of free-yet-doubly-burdened women in Russia, and that Western feminism and Russian feminism are two very different things. Broadly, at first interaction, the former cannot fathom the oversight of the sex-gender separation and total-equality discussions in the latter, and the latter sees these topics as much less relevant in the context of socialism and anyone pushing them to be radicals who are not actually looking out for women's best interests.
I think the two do have something to offer each other, however, given the journal issue's existence, but also on some specifics within the issues mentioned above.

For me, these points of possible learning occur at certain statements that seem to pop out of an otherwise levelly written essay. Reiter and Luxton stick to description with some helpful analysis for the first few paragraphs, and then seemingly out of nowhere insert this: "At the same time, the concept of women and men having different natures fosters a celebration of femininity as pretty and weak." (p. 27) First of all, "natures" here and earlier on the page seems to be too strong a word, carrying connotations of being on the same level as "human nature." Secondly, their quote of Kaidash contradicts this: "the indispensability of each sex" (Ibid., emphasis mine) hardly makes sense if one assumes a framework of dominance a la Kollontai's Thirty-Two Pages. Finally, while I agree that it's important to emphasize similarities between the sexes in the context of broken gender relations (i.e., when needed), I believe that God created two different genders to show different aspects of the divine nature in a way that is humbling to both men and women as they observe one another. And far be it from me to take this to mean we should celebrate "femininity as pretty and weak"! On the absolute contrary, anyone who attended the Global Citizenship Conference at Laurier last year and was present at the mock beauty pageant had it laid out for them if they didn't realize it before: "every day" women are strong--they have to be to survive--even or especially in the contexts wherein we might consider them powerless. For a woman to have any other supposedly contradictory quality amidst this--be it prettiness, or caring, understanding, wisdom, ...--ought to amaze us, and this strength alone, never mind "strength, plus...," is the femininity that was celebrated at the GCC. Indeed, this is exactly what is painted for the reader in detail in Baranskaya's story. So I think the Western framework would be enriched here. The examples given are true, no doubt (the letters from Russian women on p. 15 attest to this) but the cause and effect link is assumed rather than demonstrated--count me as a counterexample in that I loathe the beauty contests too. But it's all moot unless we can learn to celebrate positive human qualities in a person regardless of their gender, because despite the existence of two sexes (not to mention the sexuality of more complicated persons) neither creating boxes based on tendencies nor pretending that all tendencies are socially constructed will help us help each other become what we were meant to be. And we certainly can't predetermine what that is based on gender or anything else--this is the joy of life's journey.

"Over-emancipation" is quoted multiple times as the common Russian analysis of the Soviet women's problem. To me it feels almost like a tongue-in-cheek way of describing it: since "emancipation" has meant the freedom to become overburdened, rather than the freedom to have a balance of burden, it's facetiously accurate language to use. But Canadian criticism of it would seem to follow from the view that a woman with children who stays at home is in chains: "The measures proposed [to ease the double burden]...are all designed to keep women in harness--married and primarily responsible for the children." (p. 29) Perhaps that's somewhat valid: admittedly maternity leave wins out over paternity leave almost always. (p. 28) My question for both paradigms, then, is: why can't the family, and the role of both mother and father, be valued in such a way that joint leave is considered the best option and the norm? (I can probably answer that: Because it's too expensive.) But socially speaking, I would love to live in a world where whether you were a man, woman, single, married, had many children, were childless, were dedicated to a career, or worked part time (at a "paid" job or at home), or not at all (if circumstances prevented you from working), you would be valued and considered worth talking to, sharing food with, listening to, supporting, and spending time with in general; that you would be given respect. Why should stay-at-home dads be applauded but "traditional" moms be considered weak and trampled-upon, or those who try to do it all be considered stupid and undeserving? The social structures do need to be in place to allow this choice to actually be free, but I think this just brings us to the problem of general economic inequality (cf. the woman who wrote in on p. 15 again).

The Russian feminist voice could also learn from this. The household work imbalance in a marriage (well illustrated by Baranskaya) needs to be more seriously questioned. Also, and relatedly, it feels like in some cases they have taken the gender role separation too far: the rhetoric behind "How can she play football, and still expect a man to help her?" seems to have created some artificial division. There are countless things that both men and women can do, and do well, but they fall to one or the other rather than being negotiated on an individual basis or being tackled jointly. But individual choices are still based on socialization to an extent--which is where Pearson's article comes in.

The author presents a much fuller picture than the previous article of gender stereotype socialization and its practical effects, and the resulting argument is much more robust and productive in the end. To me both halves of the article seem to lend support to two statements: "If playing a supportive role is only honoured when it is done by a woman, then no amount of legal and economic equality will make any difference," (p. 94) and "there must be more women at the highest levels of Soviet power where they can impose some of those human qualities of compassion and understanding, of which they have learned to be proud." (p. 95, emphasis in original) But perhaps it would be easiest to start by replacing the notions of "the 'ideal' man and the 'ideal' woman" (p. 95) with something more helpful, like specific roles that men and women both step into: why not discuss the ideal coworker, teammate, friend, parent, sibling, housemate, child, babysitter, student, civic leader, project supervisor, spouse, lover, stranger, teacher, research assistant, etc., if ideals are a good way of framing a classroom discussion? Maybe then Russian men and women would be able to appreciate other and become better equipped to help shape one another towards becoming "ideal" human beings.

Reading Journal 9

(On the Russian dating service photocopies.)

Radzinsky's article, after reading the past few hopeful novels that we have, revealed a fairly tragic but predictable reality: Russian women almost seem to be where North American women were, from the narrow depiction I've absorbed from the media, in the 1970's: they are "winning," in some sense, the beginning of a fierce battle for independence from men in the workplace and gender relations. Middle-class women are somewhat economically empowered but still unequally so, open sexual expression long repressed by Soviet morality has begun to saturate the media, and men are becoming divided into either the "whipped" category or the "traditional" category, and there is no room at the moment for Glebs, let alone Pavels, in cross-gender relationships. His final lines are telling: "The Russian girls are coming. They don't want to change the world. They want to conquer it." Will there be a modern-day Kollontai that does want to change the world? Would the culture allow her to be heard? I suppose that's where the Vice photo-article comes in.

One theme amongst the brief Q&A captions was that local Russian men do not treat women well or otherwise would not make suitable partners, so they seek men from other countries, some of which hold more promise than others. Americans, Muslims, and Arabs in particular, just in this small selection, are not preferred, but Dutch, English, and German men are. There's some sense to the logic given: the Natasha of p. 73 cite the practical statistic of the latter group wanting to be with women closer to their age, which is more likely to work due to similarities in life stage; others cite more respect being given from them.

In my brief encounter with liberation theology a few years ago, I heard of three ways of responding to systematic problems: temporary aid, sustainable aid, and restructuring the system in question. Within this framework, it's obviously preferable in the long term to engage the last option, albeit much more difficult. But if we apply this to the situation above, the moral prescription is clear: Russians, Americans, Muslims, Arabs, Dutch, English, and Germans are all likely in need of varying degrees of cultural transformation. This is not to prejudge every relationship that comes about through an international dating service as unworthy, doomed to failure, etc., but rather to recognize that if Tver are often drunk or high and don't have respect for women, the outsourcing of relationships with men to other countries does not seem likely to be a path to the coming about of a generation of sober Tver men that have in mind the best interests and humanity of their female counterparts and of themselves. Tver women, as well, are in a sense training themselves to run from possible transformational roles as mothers and sisters, and instead embrace a preference for the unknown rather than a redemption of the known in situations of conflict. This is a harsh criticism, absolutely, and I'm not saying I would do any better in their situation; indeed, I have my own history of abandoning situations wherein I feel overwhelmed by a systematic problem. But I do know that sometimes the unknown turns out to be much worse; meanwhile, whether it turns out well for her or not, what good there was in a local Tver woman has left with her and is in both cases unlikely to return. Furthermore, if the facts in these short captions are what they appear to be, I believe Tver culture has plenty sufficient intelligence, practical skills, and creativity needed to become what its women are dismayed that it isn't.

Reading Journal 8

(On Gladkov's Cement.)

Considering all of the negative references I had heard directed at socialist realism in passing during research on Sofia Gubaidulina, I had expected Gladkov's writing to be one-dimensional and biased-feeling. It may still have a pinch of the latter, but compared with Gorky, the scene painted is so much more realistic and fault-admitting. As Dr. Volynska remarked in class, it's a wonder that it was published when it was, and even more so that it more than survived in the coming years. It was notably contradictory to what was expected of socialist realism, just from the list given in class:

• reality is not as it should be
• focus on individual stereotypes
• tragedies abound--rape, Nurka's death, and Serge's family being torn apart, to name a few
• not all is known (just by the fact that it takes an entire book of conflicts to get one factory restarted)
• dogma is not truth: Nurka dies from lack of love (Soviet dogma fails)
• hero and heroine both have major flaws
• outcome not at all inevitable, or even expected; constant conflict throughout
• human beings change and are not class-determined (Serge's father hates his possessions, the Cossack leader shows mercy, and the working class members often do not live up to their assumed great humanity)
• while the overall style is clear and rational, Gleb's words sometimes aren't, particularly as he comes to grips with the new Dasha
• the evolution of Gleb comes post-indoctrination, not parallel to it

While the other approximate half of the list does seem to apply, it was much more interesting to notice these, because, especially if one is expecting something highly propagandistic, such deviations actually lend the story much more 'true' realism and credibility; trust in the author's honesty is much more feasible. This is especially so since Gladkov, by having Nurka die from her mother's own description, "lack of love," especially in the face of her absolute commitment to the Soviet cause and her work in the Women's Section, apparently disagrees with Kollontai's replacement of the nuclear family with communal child-rearing. Finally, the admission that some organs of the communist regime do not always make the best decisions--evidenced by corruption in Chapter 15 and the opposition within the state that Gleb must overcome to get the factory finally working again in the end--is strikingly realistic. Unfortunately, from reading Solzhenitsyn, we know that this warning message fell on deaf ears, only to be turned into an excuse for more waves of arrests under the accusation of sabotage and misuse of resources, while the higher-ups actually guilty of these things tended to survive much longer before being offed by Stalin.

In terms of gender relations, this book is both encouraging and tragic. I see it as good that Dasha is able to become more fully human, and eventually bring Gleb around to affirming this without giving up his own strengths, but actually thus giving up some of his weaknesses and becoming more fully human himself. What's disheartening is that the overwork and misguided trust in the commune that Dasha follows through to the end destroys her daughter literally and also puts an end to what had developed into something good between her and Gleb. On the trust in the commune I remarked in an earlier journal that I'm actually in favour in some respects, but the description given in the book of the lady in charge of raising Nurka makes Dasha's trust in her seem foolish. I guess this amounts to my disagreement with either implicit trust or implicit distrust in such a system: if you can build a relationship with someone such that you can trust them to help you raise your child--indeed, isn't this a large part of the traditional marital relationship?--then the world is better for it. But entrusting someone you actually believe is a scoundrel, or shying away from trusting anyone, I see as divergent from furthering the humanity of oneself and others in the world. This is also why I think the "open relationship" proposed by Kollontai complicates things: we see it play out here in Dasha's inexplicable sexual relationship with Badin after his unwanted advances and betrayal are so vividly juxtaposed with her courage in Chapter 8, in that Dasha's unrestricted sexuality makes it difficult for her to perceive accurately the truth of the situation: that she is not having sex with Badin, the man, but rather with his position, as symbolic of the revolution she is so passionate about.

Reading Journal 7

(In response to the second set of materials on Kollontai.)

Make way for Winged Eros

This particular reading I didn't have much to say on, because it seemed Kollontai didn't have that much to say, either. How can this be, across sixteen pages? Well, after setting up the question of the place of love in the new proletarian ideology, and giving a relatively uncontroversial interpretation (especially within a communist framework) of love's various functions throughout history, the picture she gives is not at all well filled-out. Granted, it's adorned with a lot of positive language (e.g. "unprecedented beauty, strength and radiance", p. 291), but all the paragraphs seemed to say the same thing without going into very much detail. The basic message was that love ought to turn from something limited to being expressed fully only within monogamy to something directed toward the collective. Practically this means caring for others and not isolating "loving pairs", but also not being sexually exclusive. I'm not sure what I can say about that besides the former being a healthy idea, as I've learned in life, and the latter being curious given Kollontai's denunciation of loveless sex ("wingless Eros") on the basis that it can entail "the early exhaustion of the organism, venereal diseases, etc." (p. 287) aside from not being fulfilling or useful to the collective. Perhaps the latter is the primary basis, but nonetheless, Kollontai doesn't seem to bother answering the question of how exactly all of these new "sexual relations will probably be based on free, healthy and natural attraction (without distortions and excesses) and on 'transformed Eros'," without the above-mentioned dangers, and without superhuman abilities to make sense of one's emotional and sexual attractions. She seems instead to sidestep this, placing her bets on an unknown love-comradeship: "What will be the nature of this transformed Eros? Not even the boldest fantasy is capable of providing the answer to this question." (p. 290) Whereas Kollontai believes that "surely the complexity of the human psyche and the many-sidedness of emotional experience should assist in the growth of the emotional and intellectual bonds between people," (p. 288) I think human culture has a long way to go before that complexity can start working for our benefit in the context of free sexual relations. I see our complexity as a limit, one that makes it much wiser to commit to one person than to try to take on the world. For me, this is precisely the reason that non-isolation of a couple is essential: only then can others healthily promote their relationship and help each of them to grow in loving the other, and only then can their relationship likewise be about the good of others besides themselves. So in many ways I agree with her aims, and her model of a particular male-female relationship given in three points on p. 291 is absolutely something to strive for, but it would much more healthily and with emotional manageability be done within the maintenance of sexual relationships and deep friendships being in two categories with only a one-person overlap.


The Lady With the Pet Dog

I have little context within which to evaluate Chekhov's story here, besides Kollontai's Winged Eros, even though it was written a number of years later. Before we get into that, there were a few elements that stood out to me, elements of both Dmitry and Anna Sergeyevna's perspectives that I identify with fairly strongly. With Dmitry it's the haziness of his existence that I experience pretty often, or at least have for the past few years, and probably before it too, but the haze brings with it selective or faulty memory too, as Dmitry notices on p. 423. At times I also feel somewhat like Anna Sergeyevna when she says, "I wanted something better. 'There must be a different soft of life,' I said to myself. I wanted to live! To live, to live!" (p. 418) Although the rest of the context of that statement is where we differ, I still feel that element of her life in my own. It was odd to me to identify with both of them, since they're both very different characters. But other than this facet of engagement, the story was straightforward and only interrupted by the poetic prose on pp. 419f as highlighted by the handwritten note in our photocopy. The "movement towards perfection" mentioned therein, and the idea of such movement (or at least movement forward from what is) present in Kollontai's piece above, leave me to comment mostly just that the ending of Pet Dog seems to lament the hypocrisy of their relationship, or rather, everything but their relationship, and long with the two of them for some way that their "real" love might some how be able to be freely lived out. It feels tragic that movement towards this will "be most complicated and difficult" under these "intolerable fetters." (p. 433) Thus it would seem that Kollontai and Chekhov are aligned in wanting relationships to be more freely moved between, and allowing "love" (in its various meanings to the two of them) to be allowed to function well without being hindered by the social constructs of the time. Chekhov doesn't at all engage the economic motivation behind this as Kollontai does, just noting that Anna Sergeyevna's and Dmitry's estates both have money. Nor does it seem to mean anything similar to Kollontai's vision of being able to care deeply for the collective. In fact, how their relationship comes about suggests that it doesn't even end in line with Kollontai's three-point vision for male-female relationships: while he sincerely feels compassion towards her, her earlier repeated lament over losing his respect when they first begin their affair doesn't seem to resolve here. Perhaps, then, criticisms of Kollontai over her advocacy of "looseness," while not necessarily without legitimacy whatsoever, would be better lobbed at Chekhov; nonetheless, the general question of love remains.


Three Generations

Wow. Well, it seems I read these in a convenient order, with Kollontai's previous essay informing my interpretation of the story, and Chekhov in there for her reference to Chekhovian characters, although that was minor. Yet again I find it difficult to find much to say about the reading of any interest. On the surface, at least, it seems to just prove correct the objections in my interpretation of Winged Eros, that anything beyond monogamy is emotionally unmanageable, not to mention being necessarily complicated well beyond practicality. At the same time, though, Zhenya and Andrei's stance might seem to support Kollontai on this point, and confirm Olga's suspicions that she's just behind the times psychologically. Yet from my view the way all of the Eros relationships in the story end, and the grief they cause before they end, and the fact that they all come to an end, doesn't in my mind do much to promote the stable environment of mutual care among members of the collective for which Kollontai hopes. She might counter, however, that this ability, realized fully only by the third generation, of relationships to break more cleanly (Zhenya only hints at jealousy on the part of the man in the case of her breakups, but not as something she heeds) can at once allow sexual fulfillment as needed and yet allow for the movement of labour across the country as expediency dictates on behalf of the proletariat. It's the fundamental disagreement I have with Kollontai as described in the first part of my response above that seems to result in our differing interpretations of the same situation. Obviously she would not have written this story if she thought it flew in the face of what she believed about love's place in the world, so I think it's valid to interpret these three generations, as described, as a movement toward the aspirations found in her essay. But I still disagree with her; I don't think it helps women, or men, to relate to one another the way her characters do.

She does appear to honestly engage the more striking inconsistencies that arise in her characters' stories, but to me, even the explained conclusions are not viable. To do this, she has the narrator interject during Zhenya's story and has Zhenya reconcile the points in question. Why didn't she tell her mother immediately? "I didn't think it concerned her." (p. 207) This does make sense in her context, but how this is the type of sensitivity she wants people to have toward one another, I cannot see. To the question of how she could love her mother so much and yet put her through so much pain, she objects, "If I'd thought for one moment, if I'd known that Mother would take it this way . . . I would never have done it." (p. 209) To me, defining sensitivity in such a way as to exclude this thought from occurring to Zhenya--who loves her mother more than Lenin, who she would also die for--is to make it meaningless.

In a related thread about the nature of love, it may be that Kollontai has merely not fleshed this out in my mind, but it seems that her exclusion of the notion of self-sacrifice from love is the root of our disagreement. One might say, that's not true: the idea of dying for and of giving anything for the avoidance of pain for a loved one are both present even in Zhenya's talk. (p. 209) But the self-sacrifice I'm talking about it of one's life in the sense of its ongoing totality, a continuous renegotiation of oneself and subordination of one's interests and inclination for the true good of another. It feels as if she shies away from this kind of altruism because of how it has previously been an enabler of domination over the proletariat and especially over women; instead it must be channeled solely towards the collective. Fair enough, it has been abused; but so has any other form of trust of another human being, and communism certainly can't function without that. This isn't Kollontai's view; the narrator does wonder who is right. (p. 211) Yet, it still feels as if she tries to convey that everything does work out in this situation, that all she need do is convey to Olga that Zhenya really loves her and isn't coldly rational about everything. Hopefully our discussion in class will shed some light on all of this.