As if I didn't just blog enough...

I just finalized a long post about branding and advertising, however, I feel the need to post this immediately. It is 100% related to the previous post yet is local and tangible and I want to blog this while everything is accurate in my mind.

Ok. So, Tim Hortons has come to be a household name in many Canadian homes. They continue to be a household name despite the fact that their coffee is not Fairly Traded, despite the fact that they still have not made any move to introduce a biodegradable sleeve to their repertoire (rather then the double- cupping method), considering that their cups are not biodegradable and Tim Hortons comprises over 60% of the coffee market. Ok. So, that aside Tim Hortons for the most part, even after turning out to be any other corporate giant out to make a name for themselves, is of course, selling a brand, not a product. Consumers don't buy the product, they buy the brand and all its associations of being a Canadian Tradition.

Anyhow, all this aside, they have at least done environmentally conscious consumers one favour by offering a discount if you bring in a travel mug or reuse your previous cup. A ten cent discount- that's how much we are willing to spend to help save the earth. Now we've put a price on it. Anyhow, I digress.

This in fact is just a consequence of Tim Horton's being a stupid crappy corporation.

So, we go through the drive through tonight, and I place the order, ordering mine in a travel mug that is "about the size of a large." We pull up to the window, we hand over the mug, and they pour the contents of one of their large disposable cups into my travel mug.

I honestly could not believe that I witnessed that. Now, this has happened to me three times at three different locations. This is NOT a coincidence. Tim Hortons is creating the illusion that they care about the environment at least a little to give you a ten cent discount off of your coffee to bring in travel mugs, but they really just pour your coffee into a paper cup for efficiency's sake at the drive -thru, and throw it out. They literally trick you into thinking that you are decreasing your environmental footprint! That is so unethical on so many levels! Individuals are working hard to try be responsible, and places like Tim Hortons, "institutions" are deceiving us by having us believe that they would not be so damn stupid and disrepectful- BUT, they are. These corporations also don't give us and our values much credit do they? If we are going to seriously change the world are we going to resist "brands" entirely? Will we be able to find some way to reconcile with them? I am seriously going to be contacting head office about this. You should too. I am so outraged that this is happening- I will definitely be boycotting Tim Hortons.

**Just a side note** Even if for some reason Tim Hortons tries to say that they reuse the cups or some crap then they've got some bigger problems re: Food Safety

**Update** As i re-think this experience i have considered that the drive-thru itself is an issue. In an effort to be eco-friendly the drive-thru's gotta go. You know, emissions.

I just want to tune out all the billboards and build myself a mental shield.

Here is an excerpt from Klein's book No Logo that actually gave me chills (all emphasis mine)

"But there were those in the industry who understood that advertising wasn't just scientific; it was also spiritual. Brands could conjure a feeling- think of Aunt Jemima's comforting presence- but not only that, entire corporations could themselves embody a meaning of their own. In the early twenties, legendary adman Bruce Barton turned General Motors into a metaphor for the American Family, "something personal, warm and human" which GE was not so much the name of the faceless General Electric Company as, in Barton's words, "the initials of a friend." In 1923 Barton said that the role of advertising was to help corporations find their soul." (Klein, 6-7)


Actually makes you want to gag a little huh?
It's sickening to actually read concrete evidence confirming my gut feeling about advertising and our consumerist culture.

It's not that I want to escape the consumerist culture, I accept that we live in a capitalist society but I really need to find a way to resist this suffocating enclosure I am feeling.

Ever since I started taking my fourth year women's studies seminar "Bodies, Gender and Consumption" I have really started to pay more attention to my consumption habits and those around me, especially with respect to our friendly neighborhood "big-box" retailers (ahem, Wal-Mart) whose manufacturing practices are rife with oppression.

I am finding myself consumed (no pun intended) with trying to make sure that I am making the most responsibly consumer choice available to me at any given time. At the same time I am finding it impossible to escape corporate "brand" faith and gendered ideas of what I as a female should like and be like. I've really got this school of thought right now because I'm adding fuel to the fire by reading No Logo by Naomi Klein. Already, in the first chapter I am feeling chills at the way that companies have invaded our lives in every aspect through their strategy of "branding," where the company, rather than marketing its stuff markets its brand image, doing extensive market research on what their brand represents to the culture, and essentially trying to ensure that it represents the values of the target demographic rather than the needs in terms of the 'stuff' we need.

I feel that even since I was 12 or so a lot has changed, or perhaps I've simply become more aware of my surroundings. No matter. The fact still remains that I feel suffocated by corporations, and quite frankly I am tired of it. Brands have even invaded my home life. I am sitting here blogging on a Toshiba computer, using a Microsoft Window's Processor and using i-tunes to play my music, with a Motorola cell phone beside me in case my partner calls me since I'm expecting him over shortly. Already, four brands and I'm only in my living room (and if I looked around I'm certain I could find more)- If I went into my bedroom or my kitchen then i could list brands for a very long time because they are literally everywhere around me, evoking certain feelings/associations of the brand with particular values. I try my best to ignore the 'brands' but when they involved in everything you do it's hard not to find yourself in the trap of displaced brand faith. (More on this later)

Here is the dilemma I find myself in. I want to buy ethically produced products and locally grown produce which requires me to find a co-op or something along those lines, and also requires that I do research into the Brands I am intending on purchasing. I take four different brands of coffee and research their production standards, where their coffee comes from, and then I make a decision about which brand best represents your values. I frequently try not to fall into the trap after brand faith, but in an effort to make the most responsible consumer choices I have found myself committing to other brands. The ones who's advertising/my third party research deemed acceptable. The bottom line is still coming down to the brand because we have such an abundance of sources for all the crap we as North Americans consume.

I want to reduce waste and I am a big coffee drinker, so I buy a travel mug from Starbucks- Branding again, and also an indicator of brand faith, which i do have because if all their coffee is not Fair Trade Certified, it is Fairly Traded and so far it's the best option I can consistently rely on.

I want to buy beauty products that are natural, not bad for your skin as many of the cosmetics on the market are, so after research you commit to The Body Shop.

Now, let's stop and think about the images that the Body Shop evokes. When I think of the Body Shop, I don't necessarily think of a product, in fact, I have never had a product come to mind, but an image. Think about it? What does the Body Shop represent to you? Ethics? Natural Sources? Natural Beauty? The Body Shop has branded itself as the ethical source for cosmetics, and they have never compromised on price, because they have always had faith in their brand and that it would bring them the sales. And they were right. As were so many corporations.

No matter how i try to fight huge corporations, I find myself in a double bind because I still inevitably find myself endorsing another brand. I am pissed off right now because I am always branded. Avon. The Body Shop. Lush. Yves Rocher. Kiss My Face. Starbucks. Kleen Kanteen. Vogue. The Big Carrot. (Luckily when it comes to close I have been able to escape the brand trap)

It is truly discouraging.

The whole notion of brands and capitalism today is chilling. What happened to going to the store and knowing the clerk, and they would help you out with a personal and community feeling? (Maybe knowing the clerk is a little of a stretch, but i mean, there is no sense of community and we purchase "brands" rather than products ie: is there really any difference between the branded bag of flour or the no name brand of flour; which ironically is also branded?) Companies came to realize that marketing values sold better than stuff, and so, rather than marketing the things we needed we would have the brand and their values marketed to us. This happens in such a manner that I cannot go to the gym at my school without 12 foot high advertisements for Alesse. I also can't use the washroom in the food court without sitting and staring at some stupid piece of crap ad on the washroom door. "This advertising space generously donated by this establishment and Zoom media." Wow. Thank you. You were so generous to ensure that I can't even pee and have that 30 seconds free of some sort of corporate advertising ploy.

So, as I was saying at the beginning of this post, I am desperate for a way to combat this branding! I want to resist but I consistently keep falling back into the trap of Brand faith. It is getting to a point that everything is sponsored, everything has a logo, and I seriously find myself feeling clausterphobic by the invasion of my personal space. So, my stategy for reistance so far is to avoid certain brands like Walmart. I buy local produce. I always try to buy the no-name alternative or to buy a completely different product that does the same thing (ie: no name tonic water and baking soda to clean out stains rather than some heavily branded and chemically laden stain removing agent.) But short of that I am really unsure of what other type of resistance I could really afford just in my daily life (after school is over this term I would definitely commit to something bigger)...any ideas?

I don't know what to think!

please note that this article seems to contradict this one also published by the Toronto Star.

what IS a 'killer profile?'

This event serves to remind me that our campuses continue to get less and less safe every day. What is more "baffling" is that the student who went into the Illinois University and open fired in a lecture hall did not "fit the killer profile." There is no way to attribute this individual's behaviour to being previously bullied or a social recluse. He was personable, and he was a student in the school.

The previous shootings (Virginia Tech and Dawson College in Montreal) were "less threatening" because the shooters were described as socially inept, rejects essentially bordering on psychotic. This individual however, was part of the wood work. He didn't act unusual in the days leading up to the shooting, he wasn't known for his social problems, but was in fact seen to have great potential.

I did not read the article released on the day of the shooting, however I just read the article from the Saturday edition of the Saturday Star, and what really grabbed my attention was the headline of "Gunman didn't fit killer profile." This article goes on to describe the promising life that Steven Kazmierczak was predicted to have, and this only served to cause me more distress than any of the other reports of recent campus shootings have given me. After reading this article I put down the paper with the grave reminder that anyone can be a killer and, as this distinct case demonstrates, he or she might not necessarily fit the "profile" of a serial killer. (Thanks, I didn't think that 'normal' people were capable of killing- only the obvious psychos)

This article, and others which discuss our recent campus shootings are problematic for a number of reasons. First of all, it reenforces a stereotype of what serial campus shooters are like. From Columbine until today, all of the shooters have been "abnormal" socially, have been loners who were visibly disturbed. Which in turn also reenforces a false notion of security for students who feel that their campuses are "safe" from shooters because there is no "known" social recluse in their midst.

I finished reading this article feeling less safe than I did when I first began reading it because *shock* this individual did not meet the "killer profile," reminding me that every day each person I encounter on campus could be a shooter waiting for their moment to attack. They just might be really good at hiding the fact that they're planning a massacre. This article left me wondering if perhaps the characteristics of the other murderers were ways for us to displace our guilt about what had happened- this man gives us no excuse or scapegoat.

However, what I find it important to remind myself of is that this threat has always been there, it is the representation of this particular incident which gives it the appearance of a new threat; because the killer did not stand out against the societal norms we have constructed. We know that any day someone could open fire on the school, but we always assume that we'll be able to detect it, that we'll be able to spot the individual from a mile away due to their social tendencies. We almost assume that there will be warning bells when a killer is in our midst, but this article is a cruel reminder that while their may be warning signs that someone is a potential murderer, this will not always be the case. The Virgina Tech and Dawson College shooters happened to exhibit warning signs, however the Illinois shooter was able to blend in with his surroundings and come out under the radar.

I am still trying to figure out how the Star wants me to interpret this article.

Is it an "How could we see it coming? he was 'normal'! Campus killers are psycho, and obviously so" or is it a "We have to recognize that there isn't really one 'killer profile.' It can be anyone."

In all reality, we are reminded by this incident that yes, Kazmierczak was obviously not of sound mind if he was able to open fire in a lecture hall and then shoot himself, even though he seemed to have the appearance of it. Not all killers are going to send off warning bells, and it is a sad fact of life. I'm sure that he did fit the "killer profile," people were simply blinded by his academic excellence and his "normalcy" to see past it. But perhaps we couldn't seen through it, perhaps he was able to hide his crazy extremely well. The lesson remains to be learned that a killer could be anyone, they could be the guy or girl you sit next to in class who is brilliant and smart and who you lend a pen occasionally and discuss feminist theory with. The truth is we never know, and every time there is another campus shooting each university student finds themselves hard pressed to embrace the "community" we are each a part of and begins to wonder if perhaps one day their own life could be torn apart by the person they least expect in the environment they should always feel safe in.

As members of our individual university communities we have an automatic trust for our fellow students, and its sad that once again we are reminded that this is dangerous. However, at the same time, we also reminded of just how helpless we are to stop it! Short of metal detectors, how could his ever be regulated? A university is not as contained and controlled as a high school (even though they are not as safe anymore, and even though we like to think that we are all rational/ethics/moral adults since we've been admitted into the university). I really don't sit here with answers at all, but questions, and fear.

Most importantly I comment on how we are so "surprised" because this individual didn't meet the "killer profile" but we have to remember that just because one doesn't exhibit the "killer profile" obviously doesn't mean that it's not there. It's sad and scary, but it could be anyone and I am a little irritated that this is apparently big news. Perhaps now that there has been an infiltration by a "normal" student of the University in Question there will be more discourse, and as a result, action, in regards to campus safety and the social culture that pervades these attacks.

The Miss Nice G_

Thursday was the Miss G_ Project's most crucial campaign ever in the effort to get Women's and Gender Studies into Ontario High schools. This campaign encouraged all supporters of the Miss G_ project to call the Minister of Education Kathleen Wynne and ask her when she will be honouring her commitment to include a women's and gender studies program in Ontario High schools. They received an overwhelming amount of calls, and at one point the Minister's answering machine not working. For some stats on why we need women's and gender studies in highschools, check out this video.

Though I know the campaign is over, any call is better than no call!

The OB/GYN

So, I'm back now to discuss my appointment experience:

The process for getting in to see an OB/GYN is that I have to have a referral from Health Services to the doctor of their choice. If I chose to pursue my own care and choose my own doctor I would most certainly find myself waiting one to two years merely to get my first appointment.

So, due to this doctor shortage i find myself literally at the mercy of the choice that Health Services and the OB/GYN that they choose for me. (And of course, I am foolish and trust the choice of WLU health services- foolish indeed.)

It might have to do with the research I've been doing on childbirth and Western Childbirth Practices, but I really had high expectations of my first visit to the OB/GYN. However when I finally left I felt like less of a person, and it was clear/obvious that I wasn't an individual or a woman to be listened to, but an object to be directed. I had no say in what was happening, no outlet to ask any questions and didn't leave feeling like a free agent better equipped to help me make a decision about my birth control options. In short, I expected to leave feeling empowered and instead i left feeling violated and depressed.

So, I'll just start from the beginning of my day (because it certainly was a whole day):

When I stepped off the elevator onto the second floor, I walked around looking for the suite, and found it very quickly because the office was so full that one woman was actually sitting outside of the waiting room! Anyhow, she immediately informed me that her appointment was scheduled for 11am, yet here she was at 12:30pm still waiting to be seen. So, I'm thinking, this is going to be a long afternoon...

The waiting room was possibly the smallest room i could have ever been, there wasn't even space for me to fill out the paperwork required for a first visit. I felt like all eyes were on me and everyone was watching me fill out incredibly personal and revealing information. Watching me list off like it has no meaning the ins and outs of my cycle.

How often do you bleed?
How much do you bleed?
When was the last time you had your period?
etc etc
Like I was cataloging the habits of my uterus.
Not to mention that it was the first day of my period and the OB/GYN obviously didn't even take the time to read the degrading questions I was required to answer because she did not know that it was the first day of my period.

After I filled out these questions, I went and sat in the hall outside of the office because there was simply no more room in the waiting room for patients to sit.

So anyhow, as it turns out, even though my appointment was scheduled for 1pm I had time to leave and go to class from 2:30-4 and come back for my appointment (which is an indication right away that OB/GYNs are overworked, underpaid and are being bombarded with more patients than they can possibly handle.)

So, before i discuss the circumstances of my actual appointment, I feel the need to comment on the circumstances of the waiting room, which is not the fault of the doctor herself, but more the fault, I think, of Daulton McGuinty and our own health care system.

Many of the women waiting there at 2pm had scheduled appointments at 11am- some of these women were obviously pregnant and found themselves due to the shortage of OB/GYNs obligated to give up their entire day in order to submit to a 15 minute appointment which did nothing to preserve dignity or individual subjectivity. I have never seen so many pregnant women in one room before, it was intensely overwhelming and I certainly felt my anxiety level go up (I attribute this to the fact that I seriously thought I was pregnant last month and this was th first day of my period- I was still recovering from the prospect of housing and raising a child) However, anxiety aside, the overwhelming number of pregnant women just waiting to be called for their turn with this woman seriously gave me the impression of "baby mill"

As I sat in the waiting room I started to become very anxious because the "woman friendly environment" i had anticipated was quickly being overshadowed by the obvious clinical ideals of our Western medical system. I honestly don't know why I would have expected less, because the OB/GYN is still a division of traditional Western Medicine, however, I had high hopes considering that the practice is woman-centered.

Oh, how my feelings of "baby mill", "vagina mill" and woman as object were confirmed once I returned after class.

I'm not going to get into too many details of the actual appointment, but really I think question some of the principles behind what happened in that office.

In particular, I spoke to a nurse before i left for class and told her that my PAP was up to date, and yet, I was told I had to have another one. Why wouldn't Health Services have just forwarded a copy of my record over? If I had to sign a release I would have done so rather than endure my second one of the year. It almost served as a measure of power and control rather than something that done for my own wellbeing, in the way that it was performed and the way that it was treated. It seemed as though this doctor didn't see me as a person seeking educated information on contraceptives, but viewed me as someone to be lectured (and in the end she not only did that, but almost seemed to play some ridiculous mind game with me).

The part about this entire visit is that is seems as though she was intent on making me doubt what i wanted without really offering me options. She didn't seem interested in discussing what was best for me, or giving me an opportunity to ask questions. What really confused me was that she told me that I needed to have a pelvic ultrasound (which makes perfect sense to me) in order to make sure that the IUD would be ideal for me, and really i think, trying to send a moral message home by saying something to the nature of "Now, you may be in a monogamous relationship now, but this is really meant for the married woman" and the tone in which she said this to me really led me to feel that she was implying something, though I can't quite put my finger on it.

So anyhow, after this appointment, and she's really done her job to make me more doubtful and unsure of the choice I'm about to make, I go over to the counter to wait for the form that would refer me to get an Ultrasound, and what does she give me?... a prescription for an IUD.

I feel that my care has been compromised because of the culture behind Western medical practices in combination with the doctor shortage we are currently facing. Unforunately I am blogging from a friend's house so I am unable to cite literature re: the culture behind Western medical practices, but for immediate reference you can consult Foucault's "The Birth of the Clinic." and "Panopticism."

Anyhow, as a result of this dehumanizing experience, I went home feeling like some of my power had been taken away from me. The system is meant to disempower women and (intentionally or unintentionally?) makes women feel like less of a person.(I Personally lean towards intentionally considering the power structures are present in the hospital and clinical setting. It was a very odd experience and a far cry from the woman friendly/woman centered type of environment I had hoped and expected to enter. I think that the whole notion that I would be going to a doctor who specialized in gynecological related issues caused me have high hopes. It is unfortunate that I failed to consider sooner the context of the OB/GYN- it still remains within the one of Western medical care. Essentially, I failed to consider that OB/GYN is not necessarily synonymous with "pro-feminist, pro-woman perspective."

Really, how could it any different than any other clinical setting? It is difficult to find a traditional clinical setting that is empowering to anyone, never mind women within the context of an OB/GYN. It's getting late now, but I'm going to have to do my research on whether there is a different available option in the department of gynecological care.

In the meantime, since I'm toying in my head with the ethics of everything that I experienced at my doctor's appointment, here is an interesting link to a documentary coming out in the states called "At Your Cervix" which critically addresses the teaching methods and then ethics behind them currently used to train OB/GYNs in med school.

Another point I must make about what this doctor told me is that the IUD is typically meant for women who have had at least one child and who are done having children. For this reason (since its being marketed for the presumably hetersexual upper middle class white woman who is 'finished' procreating) they are only available in one size which may not be the right size for my uterus (which is why I am extremely confused as to why I was given a prescription if this is a possibility. Did she determine in my exam that my uterus was a suitable size? If the risk is so low that its not worth checking out? Was she just tired and thought she should just give me what I wanted? Then as if that wasn't enough, this woman just refers me off to another male OB/GYN because he's doing a clinical trial on the IUD, but a smaller size developed for women in my target demographic who have not yet had their first child and are currently waiting at least 5 more years to have children. This clinical trial would require me to submit to a third PAP for the year, blood work, and probably many follow ups for documentation of the IUD. This IUD is identical to the other one except that it is physically a smaller size. I don't know how I feel about all of this. As a result I have a doctor's appointment with my family doctor on Wednesday morning. More to come...

The Inspiration for a Blog

So, I created this blog about two weeks ago after my first experience at the OB/GYN. I don't know why this prompted me to create a blog, but I was thinking about how this experience went nothing the way that I had anticipated, and after reading Feministing almost every day, I thought that a good place for me to start logging all my thoughts about feministing things wouldbe here, and it would also be an interesting project for me to start and see how it goes.

So, lately I have been playing around with the possibility of different birth control options because a) The Pill causes me many problems, and b) very soon I will be graduating and I'll lose my mother's benefits which are quite awesome. The options that I came down to were the diaphragm and the IUD. This is a link to the most widely used brand of IUD, which is also the one covered by my benefits. Also the same company who makes the IUD discussed later on when I talk about the clinical trial.

So, off I go to WLU health services, which as we all know is always a pleasure and make an appointment with Doctor McFarlane to discuss the pros and cons of the IUD and the Diaphragm. After discussing these things, I decide that I would like a referral to an OB/GYN in order to further pursue the option of an IUD, and off we go...

(Karen just called and it's off to Christie's now, so I'll have to continue the story of my blog inspiration at a later date! More to come!)