transparency

Monday, July 14th, 2003

For Ruth Cummins, 1915 – 2003

Filed under: death,Granny,poetry — alison @ 23:20

Emily Dickinson
(1830-1886)

I’m nobody! Who are you?
Are you nobody, too?
Then there’s a pair of us – don’t tell!
They’d banish us, you know.

How dreary to be somebody!
How public, like a frog
To tell your name the livelong day
To an admiring bog!

Edna St. Vincent Millay
(1892-1950)

Recuerdo

We were very tired, we were very merry–
We had gone back and forth all night upon the ferry.
It was bare and bright, and smelled like a stable–
But we looked into a fire, we leaned across a table,
We lay on the hill-top underneath the moon;
And the whistles kept blowing, and the dawn came soon.

We were very tired, we were very merry–
We had gone back and forth all night on the ferry;
And you ate an apple, and I ate a pear,
From a dozen of each we had bought somewhere;
And the sky went wan, and the wind came cold,
And the sun rose dripping, a bucketful of gold.

We were very tired, we were very merry,
We had gone back and forth all night on the ferry.
We hailed, “Good morrow, mother!” to a shawl-covered head,
And bought a morning paper, which neither of us read;
And she wept, “God bless you!” for the apples and the pears,
And we gave her all our money but our subway fares.

[originally transmitted by e-mail July 14, 2003]

Friday, July 4th, 2003

Canada day

Filed under: camping and hiking,surprises — alison @ 23:40

For those of you who aren’t Canadian, our national day is July 1. This year it was rather special for me. See below.

http://peghole.com/canadaday/index.html

[originally transmitted by e-mail July 4 2003]

Sunday, June 22nd, 2003

Busy week

Filed under: camping and hiking,consuming — alison @ 10:38

I missed Boudoir for the second year in a row. (I’m possibly getting too old for it.) I had Friday off, M. hauled me to the new MEC (Mountain Equipment Co-op), just open two weeks in Montreal, I dropped my paycheque. I didn’t need a backpack - M. bought a new expensive one for himself on Thursday and gave me his old expensive one – and I didn’t need a tent - M. bought a practical and moderately-priced tent on Thursday – but I needed a sleeping bag, a mattress, a water-purification system and nylon clothes.

I hadn’t known one needed nylon clothes for backpacking, but apparently one does. They are lightweight, and when backpacking every gram counts. And they dry very quickly, preventing hypothermia. In the event I bought a pair of nylon pants for keeping bugs out and a pair of boxer shorts for wearing under a comfy hemp skirt I already have.

Other nifty purchases: Muskol, sunscreen, waterproof matches, books of Quebec and Adirondack hiking trails, an aluminum emergency blanket, a small tube of biodegradable soap, a gadget for converting camping mattresses into legless chairs, a compressor bag to convert my large fluffy goose-down sleeping bag ($175 CAD / $130 USD) into a small soccer ball, special socks, an organic cotton t-shirt ($14 CAD / $10 USD) and a titanium cooking pot ($36 CAD / $27 USD).

Surprisingly, I was not instructed to buy hiking boots, and I didn’t bring the subject up. (Next paycheque.)

After thoroughly exhausting ourselves spending all that money we paused for a bagel at the Bridgehead Fair-Trade coffee shop that in the MEC.

Next stop: Ikea. We had to exchange some chair legs that had the wrong findings with them. Two and a half hours later, and laden with somewhat more than chair legs with the correct findings, we returned home. Boudoir had started an hour before and we hadn’t had supper or decided on our itinerary for today.

Apparently we still haven’t… but we bought the accessories, which is the important part.

Will keep you posted!

Sunday, April 13th, 2003

RE: Help with history, please!

Filed under: history of feminism,movies,sex,women — alison @ 11:56

Alison Cummins wrote fretfully:
>
>So my question is: what does it mean to Barbara to be
>having sex when birth control is not an option and
>children are not part of the immediate plan?

I knew I could count on my list! Definitive answers from the crones (much shorter and more to the point than the question):

1) You’re confusing fiction with reality. You were watching a movie made by a man, in whose view pregnancy was an irrelevant distraction from the important, essential questions of love and identity. So he just ignored it and it never came up in the movie. Besides, it was the man’s job to get the condoms.

2) Barbara was just doing what unsupervised teenaged girls can pretty much be relied on to do in any culture at any time: run off to have sex with somebody unsuitable. There was no grand theory behind her behaviour. She was horny, pregnancy was something she hoped wouldn’t happen to her, and she may have been hoping that some variation of Vatican Roulette would get her by. Besides, it was the man’s job to get the condoms.

3) Sure, condoms were illegal in Canada in 1963 and people were being busted for possession. Pot’s illegal in 2003 and people are being busted for possession. Your point being? … Besides, it was the man’s job to get them.

[originally transmitted by e-mail April 13, 2003]

Wednesday, April 9th, 2003

Help with history, please!

Filed under: history of feminism,movies,sex,women — alison @ 22:00

Anne and I have just been to a very sweet documentary-style fictional film set and made in 1964 (first in a series of films relating to the lecture we attended last week on themes of identity in Québécois cinema).

Ok, now the two central characters are the enchanting Barbara (18, anglophone and jewish) and her doleful, broody, critical, self-centred boyfriend Claude (20, francophone and pure-laine). They are beats or hipsters, I guess: they and their friends are either unemployed, in theatre or in journalism, they listen to jazz, they smoke a lot and wear black. Anyway, they can’t be hippies because the word was only invented in 1965. They talk earnestly about the bourgeoisie and the Revolution. Barbara’s mother isn’t thrilled about her sleeping with Claude but doesn’t appear to believe there’s anything to do about it.

1) In 1964 the Pill exists but is very new and is illegal in Canada. Condoms and diaphragms are not new but are also illegal. Abortion is very illegal.

Birth control history timeline (west/US):
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/timeline/index.html

Birth control history timeline (Canada):
http://www.cbctrust.com/birth.html

Deduction: Barbara probably isn’t on the Pill. She probably doesn’t have a diaphragm or jelly either, and she certainly can’t walk into a drugstore and buy condoms.

2) Barbara lives with her parents in a nice part of town, and she’s a student. Having children right now would presumably be a problem for her. She isn’t living on a commune with a lot of trippy naked people happily imagining the revolution that will happen when her free children take over the world. (That won’t be a popular option for a few more years, anyway.)

***
So my question is: what does it mean to Barbara to be having sex when birth control is not an option and children are not part of the immediate plan?

I seem to remember from my British feminist history a lot of grousing by women revolutionaries who put lots of time into marxist studies and who only years later figured out that the free love, marriage-is-a-prison revolutionary philosophy affected them differently from their male comrades. (Consciousness-raising – “the personal is political” – was invented in 1968, but that was around the time that reliable birth control became generally legal and available anyway. A little late.) But I’m afraid that at the time I was investigating feminist history I didn’t have a lot of attention or concern to spare for women feeble-minded enough to be straight.

Am I to understand that Barbara has rejected the bourgeois values of proper deportment without thinking about what that will mean for her? I’m all for Barbara taking control of her own sexuality, but I suspect she hasn’t.

I’m not worried about Barbara in particular. She’s (at least partially) a fictional character. But modern free love has been around and promoted by women since Mary Wollstonecraft (she wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Women in 1791), long before the availability of reliable birth control. Mary Wollstonecraft thought that women should have the means to earn their own livings; Barbara doesn’t appear to have many thoughts at all beyond wanting to be free and loved.

Is that what happened? Women just didn’t think? Is my fretting about birth control simply an artifact of my having grown up with it, rather like I grew up with access to education? If it wasn’t around to want, did people just not think of their actions in those terms?

Or do I have this all wrong, and the black market in birth control was thriving nicely, thank you very much?

Or was it a kind of fatalism, that birth wasn’t something you could control so you didn’t think about trying. And rather than confine oneself to one’s parents’ parlour, one would run out and embrace life, embrace the future whatever it held?

(Note that in these questions I have left Claude out completely. He is so self-centred that it probably doesn’t occur to him that Barbara might get pregnant. If she did he would think it was something she did on purpose to bother him. He certainly wouldn’t marry her. At least I hope he wouldn’t: then she’d have both of them to look after…)

[originally transmitted by e-mail April 9, 2003]

Sunday, March 16th, 2003

An evening’s entertainment

Filed under: amusements,death,Suzanne — alison @ 11:52

Suzanne’s mother is dead; her father is dying. She is clearing out the family home in preparation for selling it to the highest bidder. Lineoleum is being pulled up, walls are being washed, cupboards and basements emptied and two lifetimes worth of accumulated stuff thrown away or given to the Rotary club. Hobby materials are the toughest: paintings and model boats gave meaning to the life of their maker, but that life is now over. The hobby materials do not evaporate but are left to the children to hard-heartedly toss in the dumpster.

In the guise of the sewing fairy, Suzanne came by last night bearing gifts. Sewing patterns from the fifties, sixties and seventies. Her mother was tall, so bought large-sized patterns I can use; more important, she had simple, classic tastes so I want to use them.

Attachments for my sewing machine: her mother’s Necchi went to another friend, but I got the attachments. Including a keyhole buttonholer! *Very* special! And a ruffler. The ruffler was bought for making curtains: in the pile of treasures were two books on soft furnishings and strings of orange bobble trim. Suzanne remembers the ruffled curtains in the kitchen. She also remembers the ruffler being turned to evil purposes once the curtains were hung, and being tortured with frilly dresses. I have twenty-first century plans for the ruffler but it will be used once again.

Books and books of knitting patterns for men’s cardigans A bag full of wool ends (dog sweaters!). Kniting needles. Darning needles. Snaps. A box of buttons.

A recipe book published by Lowney’s: 55 recipes for dainty marshmallows. I suspect I won’t be cooking much out of it, but perhaps it could be framed.

Everyday Etiquette by Amy Vanderbilt.

Scraps of vinyl left over from covering chairs. A little square of printed fabric probably intended to cover a small coffee table. Pre-printed fabric for embroidery. Embroidery floss.

Duvet covers from Germany. They are simple damask rectangles with embroidery and Suzanne’s Oma’s monogram at the foot end; all four sides and corners have buttonholes in them for attaching to a button-covered duvet.

Christmas time! Suzanne and I spent a happy afternoon opening packages, reliving and reconstructing the past and making sense of the present. And drinking beer.

We walked to a local artsy café for supper so that Suzanne would be okay to drive home. As soon as we sat down Suzanne announced that she disliked the waitress for treating us like dirt. Um, whatever, we’d just gotten there. We ordered.

Suzanne wasn’t having wine so the waitress brought her Perrier. She assumed it was free because she gets free bottled water at her neighbourhood Indian restaurant. Turns out it was $4.50. I had to ask for my tap water; in fact, I had to ask every time I wanted my glass filled.

The waitress got my order wrong. She brought us both what Suzanne had ordered. She was tight-lipped, not at all gracious when I asked for time to taste the food before having cheese grated or pepper ground onto it. She said she’d come back later, but had to be signalled and asked for the cheese; she promptly grated a huge mound of parmesan onto my meal with an electric grater, ruining the food. I abandoned any idea of getting pepper from her to balance the now much-too-salty meal.

Suzanne felt vindicated in her assessment of the waitress; I still defended her, saying she wasn’t a bad person – just someone who shouldn’t be a waitress, who didn’t grasp her role as hostess, who lived in her mind rather than feeding off the stimulation around her.

Guido Molinari was at the next table; the owner of the café introduced the waitress to him, who gushed her admiration of his work.

The waitress cleared our table, taking our napkins and bringing tisane. Um, our dessert? Apparently we hadn’t selected the dessert option. Yes, we had. We wanted dessert and had selected the dessert option. The waitress argued with us: we had asked for something not on the menu and she had arranged it specially for us. We were amazed: we had asked for no such thing. She angrily announced that she would have to go and get the owner to settle our dispute.

Okay, Suzanne was right. The waitress was not just spacy, she was narcissistic and treated us like dirt. A waiter came to our table, gave us our dessert for free (not what we’d asked for either – we just wanted dessert and to pay for what we got). He was very gracious, not obsequious, just a considerate host who wanted his guests to be happy.

Suzanne and I had a grand old time talking about the waitress. We speculated that she was an actress and was hired as a sort of jester to give patrons something to talk about, but Edsel Fung she ain’t.

On leaving the restaurant we tested the hypothesis that we were being hypercritical, getting sadistic pleasure out of tearing people to shreds, by going into a laundromat and criticizing it. But there was nothing to criticise: it was clean, the decor was nice, the music unobtrusive, the machines new, the change machine convenient, the bathroom large, the clientele polite. No, it was definitely the waitress.

We’ll be going back.

[originally transmitted by e-mail March 16, 2003]

« Newer Posts

Powered by WordPress