Image via www.itv.com

I love sleeping. Bed, cat, pillows, blankets that go on for days—no need to ask me twice. However, as with most things in life, what we want, what we need, and what we get are three very different things.

My Sunday to Tuesday stretch is usually the toughest part of the week. Edits and emails take up most of my day before culminating in a glorious descent to whatever flat surface first appeals to me when I drag myself through the door at two in the morning. And then I’m generally up again by 5:00 a.m. for an early shift at the beloved other job serving coffee to patrons equally as surly as myself.

The wearied act of shuffling through the entrance to bleary-eyed co-workers tires quickly. And you’d think, so would the ceaseless questions of, “You got how much sleep?” and, “How are you even on your feet?” and a few comments along the lines of, “I don’t know how you do it,” but they don’t. Fact is, in a weird way, I had always taken them with a severely misguided sense of pride. It’s like the marathoner pushing hard for the finish as bewildered spectators marvel at the sheer determination on display.

But day-to-day life isn’t a race. It’s no marathon. At least it’s not supposed to be.

I know for a fact that the egotistical bags under my eyes are not unique to my situation. Many share in this disturbing desire to deprive oneself of necessary rest; many take the surprise, shock, and sometimes horror of those around them to be pats on the back or even silent admiration.

This mentality needs to stop.

Glorifying unhealthy lifestyles is a completely backward way to go about things. This is supposed to be the 21st century—an age of realizing what’s best for our bodies and not encouraging destructive behaviour. An easy parallel would be a model suffering from bulimia. How amazing, how remarkable, that someone can eat whatever they want and then suffer none of the fattening consequences. Truly a life that has it all. Kudos.

These words sound insane. An archaic thought process more likely to be shamed nowadays than praised. Sleep is no different.

According to the National Sleep Foundation, adults between the ages of 18 and 64 require between 7 and 9 hours of sleep every night. Not every other night. Not split between two. Every night.

How unhealthy is it? Sleep deprivation leaves one at risk of heart disease, heart attacks, heart failure, irregular heartbeats, high blood pressure, strokes, and diabetes, to touch on a few. You’re also not as sharp mentally, can see a reduced sex drive, and gain weight in the process. At some point, that imaginary badge superimposed on your chest becomes very trivial indeed.

So don’t let the sandman be a mythical creature in your life. And don’t allow yourself to be “impressed” by those who fail to get their required rest. You need sleep to be the best person you can be, and in order to be healthy, you need to think healthy.

Danke danke,

Eric Wilkins

This past weekend, the Other Press headed down to Los Angeles for the Associated Collegiate Press (ACP) National Journalism Convention—a conference bringing together student newspapers from all over the United States as well as a few from Canada, including SFU and UBC. We entered two of our papers for Best of Show awards and came away with a fourth and a third for a weekly issue and a special edition, respectively.

These conferences typically have a litany of seminars and panels which serve to aid in the development of the writers and editors of tomorrow. A takeaway of mine from the conference is one that, ironically, I am ignoring here. I was singled out during a talk due to a vanilla Lettitor I wrote. The reason: it was boring—there was no real reason for you to care. Stick with me and I’ll rationalize this self-indulgent piece later.

This is my fifth, and, barring some unforeseen incident, final year at the Other Press. In my time we’ve been shortlisted for all of one award—a humour piece at NASH, the Canadian equivalent of ACP’s bash. And we didn’t win that.

It’s always been frustrating to me. There’s no shortage of talent that strolls into our office each year. No doubt that some characters will go on to achieve something meaningful in the world. But our work has gone, awards-wise, unnoticed. At the end of the day, no matter what we tell ourselves about our best effort being an award in of itself, we want validation. We want something tangible. We want more than just a mental pat on the back or a high-five from someone in the office who’d probably support you through thick and thin anyway.

So here’s me saying that I’m damn proud of this newspaper. And I’m honoured that I get the opportunity to fill up this page with my admiration for this crew. Sure, they’re just doing their job, but they’re doing it remarkably well. From the writers to the editors to the production team, it’s hard for me not to get a warm feeling inside sometimes.

Rationalization: you read this newspaper. Don’t you want to know that it’s viewed by something of importance as a quality publication? If you are reading a novel by a new author, don’t you care if there’s some book prize stamped on the cover? Even though you are perfectly capable of judging good literature for yourself, it helps to know that there’s an official declaration from a reputable third party that the words you are digesting are worthwhile.

We’ve got our book prize stamp now. You have your reassurance that you aren’t reading this simply because it’s there. And now? We’re just going to keep doing what we do best.

Danke danke,

Eric Wilkins

DSU elections are this week. Two words for you: go vote.

It’s really something that needn’t be said, but numbers don’t lie. Based on figures from the DSU, voter turnout for the last six years has been approximately 4, 6, 13, 4, 14, and 7 per cent. Abysmally low figures. I’ll save the broken record speech about democracy being a privilege.

Honestly, I completely understand students who don’t vote. Not that that makes it acceptable. I never voted in my three years as a student here… and it’s a source of constant regret. My excuses had always been that I didn’t know the candidates, or that they likely all had the same goals—after all, this is just college and we all want a better experience, don’t we? The former is a shameful answer as a hack of a journalist; spend 15 minutes researching and you’ll have a far greater understanding. The latter is also weak. Our federal parties all supposedly exist for the betterment of the country but have vastly different platforms. Why should that be any different at the college level?

It’s not the embarrassment that gets to me (though that definitely exists), rather, the realization that your vote truly makes a difference. We constantly hear during federal elections how every vote counts, but when some 17 million other people are casting their ballots as well, it’s easy to lose sight of the value of individual parts comprising the whole.

Douglas isn’t like that. It’s not a massive college by any means. Case in point, only 782 students voted last year. Seven hundred eighty-two. Doesn’t take a mathematician to figure out that you’re far more influential in a Douglas election than a federal one.

The DSU is there to represent the students. If you want change, do something about it. Take a few minutes and figure out who has your best interests at heart.

If you need real motivation, consider this: each student pays between $50 and $60 to the DSU. In an election with 100 per cent voter turnout, that means each student is representing (on the low end for simplicity’s sake) $50. In an election with 5 per cent turnout, that means each student is representing $1000—all for taking two minutes to drop a slip in a ballot box. In a society where the main gripe about post-secondary centres on money, it should come as some amusement that so many blindly ignore that which is right under their noses.

And just for good measure, some encouragement from your college president, Dr. Kathy Denton: “The DSU election is an opportunity for students to take responsibility to contribute to the democratic process and exercise their right to vote. College is a place where students are exposed to new ideas and are challenged to develop their own views of the world. An election is a time to express their views. I encourage all students to participate in their community by voting in the DSU election for whomever best represents their ideals for an independent student society in the coming year.”

Danke danke,

Eric Wilkins

We’re in the midst of Lent right now—the Christian time of fasting for 40 days and 40 nights to represent Christ’s time in the desert. To be perfectly frank, I had not even realized Lent had started until I looked it up today. The Catholic remnants of my past were quick to howl with anguish at this before once again slipping under the bed.

It is common for most Catholics to give something up during Lent. Something that means something. A sacrifice. It’s not supposed to be easy, but some go above and beyond, abstaining from multiple treats or activities.

I remember those days well. A staunch on-the-cusp-of-converting schoolboy with a heavily muddied uniform complimented by a pair of dress shoes soundly beaten by the rigors of the soccer pitch. There was never any doubt what my mother wanted me to give up for Lent.

I’m fairly certain that the majority of the time, my sacrifice for Lent was chocolate. Being a dessertatarian of the highest degree, for me, this was no small feat. It was most difficult in grade four—the year of my introduction into this new tradition—and got easier as the terms passed. Though trying to fill my sweet tooth’s dark cavity with potato chips proved to be a fruitless endeavour indeed.

Lent became one of my major trials each year. I dreaded it to an extent, but committed nonetheless. If Christ could fast for such a length of time, who was I to complain about the lack of a single luxury? If he could die for our sins, couldn’t I manage to also avoid meat on Fridays? It was all about perspective and keeping one’s purpose close to heart.

And now? I’m a happy agnostic who can’t even remember when formerly important religious observances come into season. That’s not to say my past, or in the greater scheme of things, Lent, is irrelevant.

How often do we give something up in our daily lives? How often do we truly hold ourselves back from instant gratification? In a world where a pizza can be ordered at the touch of a button and limitless programming is at our fingertips, it’s easy to get what we want when we want. And while there’s inherently nothing wrong with that, there isn’t anything particularly right about it either.

Exercise that willpower. Hold off on grabbing that tub of ice cream on the way home from work. Practice some moderation, even cutting treats and such out completely from time to time. Not only will you find your indulgences far more rewarding when they do come to pass, but you’ll be happier in general. Training yourself to be patient allows some progress from the “I want it now” attitude—it will get easier. Be like the Christians and have purpose.

Danke danke,

Eric Wilkins

Image via Thinkstock

I have always been a fan of St. Patrick’s Day. My grandmother was Irish, so that lifeline has been clung to throughout my existence. Robbie Keane jerseys, Bailey’s whenever possible, a relatively fake taste for the ever-poorly travelling Guinness whenever the folks were looking the other way, and a miserable affected accent were staples of my childhood. You have to be proud of all your roots.

It never bothered me that I wasn’t full-blooded and pale-as-a-Protestant-in-a-Catholic-church Irish. Despite looking undeniably more like my Asian half in those developing years, I’d proudly take to school, the pitch, and friends’ decked out in a green ensemble that would put even the keenest of St. Patty’s Day partiers to shame.

Similarly, though one could make the argument that I was simply looking for support of my thin Eire connection, it didn’t trouble me whatsoever when I saw classmates donning like-coloured garb. It didn’t matter if they were of Irish descent or not. It didn’t matter if they had no idea what Gaelic was. It didn’t matter if the only time they ever acknowledged the Emerald Isle’s existence was on March 17. I was happy to see others celebrating. Taking part. Making the occasion as joyful as possible. Children see the world best sometimes.

It’s something I have carried with me to this day. I sigh whenever I hear people complaining of how everyone taking part in St. Patrick’s Day is cultural appropriation. It’s a celebration. The last thought that should be going through anyone’s mind when thinking of a celebration is excluding someone—because that’s essentially what’s happening if the cultural-appropriation horn is blown loudly and soundly for all to hear. It’s saying that it’s not okay for certain parts of the population to participate. And not only shouldn’t they be involved, but it’s offensive if they do. I haven’t found a truly well-meaning cause that honestly trumpets such a notion.

Of course this does not apply solely to the Irish bash. Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, etc. Am I a Christian? Nope. Do I say, “Merry Christmas,” to others I know not to be Christian? Absolutely. Do I gladly hop into any of these holidays given the chance? For sure.

Look at these festivities like those themed days in school: crazy hair day, pajama day, etc. Do you have to partake in the fun? No, but the only person you’re shorting if you choose not to is yourself.

The world is a strange place. Many issues are swept under the carpet and mindlessly played off as nothing issues; however, in an attempt to shine a light on matters of significance, oversensitivity has emerged. Make no doubt about it, cultural appropriation does exist, but we needn’t make a concerted effort to find it in all things. Mountains out of molehills. Use your own head when forming opinions. Do some research. See how you actually feel. The popular opinion isn’t always correct, and if we decide to throw our weight behind thoughts we haven’t legitimately devoted time to, the end result often does more harm than good.

Danke danke,

Eric Wilkins

Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, recently polluted social media feeds with a photo of himself on a run through Tiananmen Square as part of the fitness challenge “A Year of Running.” The Harvard dropout was in Beijing for an economic forum, as well as to continue his so-far-futile attempts to convince China’s top brass that letting Facebook past the Great Firewall is a good idea. However, despite his obvious brown-nosing over the years attempting to ingratiate himself with the country, some were quick to point out a very important fact his research appears to have missed.

China has a bit of a smog problem, and Beijing on the day of Zuckerberg’s run was in particularly fine form: the city’s air pollution index was over 10 times the safe level determined by the World Health Organization. Many aren’t even outside at such times, let alone going for a jog. To boot, Zuckerberg and his energetic entourage were completely unprotected, forgoing the commonly found air-filtering masks—a decision his lungs likely rued instantly.

Needless to say, Zuckerberg is well-aware of the air-quality issues China faces. His run was likely partly, if not completely, staged. What better way to try and cozy-up with propaganda leaders than to attempt to show Beijing in a “refreshing” light? And it’s partially for this posing that the man is being heavily criticized—painting a false image.

However, as usual, the world has raised one hand in protest while the other does precisely that which the first is so opposed to.

Is there a very real health concern in China? Of course. But if Zuckerberg is trying to schmooze his way in, does posting a running photo that features mask-clad runners help his agenda?

The Facebook CEO has proven why he’s the head honcho at the social media giant: he’s perfectly embodied the culture of social media. We project the images we want the world to see. We heavily curate our body of images to sculpt online presences. If there’s a photo we don’t want on our profile we can remove it from our timeline. If we’re tagged in an embarrassing photo, or one that simply doesn’t fit with the feeling we’re trying to create, we can untag ourselves and move on.

How many Instagramers do you know who spend the longest time lining up the perfect shot, taking it multiple times, and then posting it as if it were a casual nothing? Social media is a great deal like the fellow who spends hours on just-got-out-of-bed hair: wanting to display an effortless (while being anything but) cool.

So Zuckerberg has gone and done just that. He’s made a run in smog look like a breeze. The photo may be a misleading lie in almost every sense, but is it right to call him on something anyone with even the slightest interest in the story likely does themselves?

Danke danke,

Eric Wilkins

Image via thinkprogress.org

The NFL Combine each year is a meat market. Players are poked, prodded, and interrogated as teams try to figure out who is worth spending a valuable draft pick on. Everything, from drill times to hand sizes, is measured. Information gathering is the goal. However, recent years have seen more stories leaking out about the wild inappropriateness of some of this information collecting.

Then-Colorado tight end (and current Denver Bronco) Nick Kasa was asked during his combine experience a few years ago, “Do you like girls?” Projected 2016 first rounder Eli Apple was posed the question, “So, do you like men?” Needless to say, these most definitely are not one-offs. And while it should come as some comfort that the coach who put the question to Apple eventually released a public apology, the real issue here is the NFL’s culture.

The NFL has taken great pains in recent years to try and prove that the league is progressive, but it is awfully difficult to take at face value when such incidents find the light of day.

Sarah Thomas’ appointment as the first female referee in 2015 was a great publicity move by the NFL but did not quite have the weight that everyone perceived. Being a referee is a relatively thankless job. At the NFL level, mistakes happen all the time. The zebras are generally as much objects of ridicule as they are police of the game. Few look at refs with admiration in their eyes. It was, in fact, a low-risk move. Worst case scenario: Thomas gets heckled and hated along with every other referee.

Even the more recent hiring of Kathryn Smith as the NFL’s first full-time assistant coach is an empty nothing. “Kathryn has been working in a football administrative role and assisted the assistant coaches for years,” said Bills’ head coach Rex Ryan in a press release at the time of the announcement. A “football administrative role” is distinctly far from coaching, and assisting the assistant coaches is wholly ambiguous. Her official title is the quality control-special teams coach—scintillating. So what does she do? Again, a quote from Ryan says it best:

“A lot of that goes with the tough things. Doing all the computer stuff, doing all the drawings, all that type of stuff. Working mainly with scout teams. … She’s done things like this in the past. With the knowledge and commitment she has – very committed young lady – I think she’ll do a great job.”

While this can mean some additional work with the scout team, it seems like she is primarily a glorified statistician. In any case, she is not patrolling the sidelines with a clipboard in her hands barking out a call in the last minute of a game, but the coverage her promotion received could have easily made one think otherwise as the NFL did its very best to let the world know of its 21st century equality ways.

The fact of the matter is that the NFL will never truly be about equality. You cannot honestly tell me that there will ever be a woman as a head coach. To think a team will ever allow a woman to be GM is preposterous. Both notions are as ridiculous as having a woman lace up some cleats and step onto the field. Just not going to happen.

Football is one of the most macho of all sports. Big, strong men beat each other up and down the gridiron. There is little room for the perceived weakness of a woman, for the athlete possessing a sexual orientation anything other than the “normal” hetero stance, for an actual voice of rights and equality.

The NFL may do its best to hide it, but appointments that amount to little more than token gestures, and acceptance of gay athletes while fresh recruits are openly questioned about their sexuality seems to indicate a culture mired in archaic thinking.

Danke danke,

Eric Wilkins

Photo of Hope Solo via deadspin.com

Ah, the 21st century: a time of progression, improvement, and constructive discussion. Not to say that there aren’t still problems. Five players from the U.S. women’s national soccer team (Hope Solo, Carli Lloyd, Megan Rapinoe, Rebecca Sauerbrunn, and Alex Morgan) filed a complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding the U.S. Soccer Federation’s (USSF) wage discrimination in paying men far more than women.

So do they have a case? According to the New York Times, women make $3,600 per friendly (of which there are 20 in a year) with a $1,350 bonus if they win. The men, on the other hand, pocket $5,000 per game and average $8,166 in bonuses for each win. All told, the maximum the women can make in a year is $99,000 while the men can pull in $263,320. Furthering this, the women won the World Cup in 2015 and shared a $2 million purse among the squad. Meanwhile, the men failed to advance beyond the round of 16 and still raked in $9 million. Along with this the USSF projects the women to be approximately $5 million in the black as the men drop $1 million into the red.

But, as usual, the issue isn’t black and white.

For starters, the collective bargaining agreements for the men and women are very different. The women are salaried (and have certain benefits the men don’t such as health care and severance) while the men are on a pay-for-play model. Most who have reported on the story more or less ignore this fact, choosing instead to skew the stats by citing the average per game. Also of note, though this is currently a point of contention between the two sides, the CBA for the women’s national team was looked at as recently as 2013. The pay discrepancy is defended by some by rationalizing that many men have demanding club schedules; the National Women’s Soccer League is actually run by the USSF and is a great deal (10 teams compared to a typical 20) smaller.

But all of this aside, the elephant in the room has to be addressed: the men’s game (both participation and financial figures) is astronomically larger than the women’s. The 2014 Men’s World Cup saw $529 million in sponsorship revenue before the women’s dragged in a paltry $17 million in 2015. To answer the concerns about World Cup bonuses, most fail to realize that this money comes directly from FIFA—the USSF has no control over this—and is, again, related to revenue. Finally, on a closely related note, while the USSF is seeing more of a profit from its women’s team, it’s difficult to discount the men’s team (through no virtue of their own other than being male) being distinctly more visible.

Should any of this really make a difference? No, not really. Both squads are doing the same job, and in this time of equal opportunity and equal pay, no one should bat an eyelash to see identical paycheques. But, as with anything else, it’s all about money—profit and maximizing advertising opportunities/visibility. When Tim Howard suits up for Everton or even Michael Bradley for Toronto FC, there are eyes watching them, on TV and in the stands. Fans know who they are. Fans know they’re USMNT players. But if Alex Morgan, one of the more popular women’s players, hits the pitch for the Orlando Pride, the question on most people’s minds would be whether a team called the Orlando Pride even exists. Recognition.

It should also be noted that, while it pains me to say this, the USSF choosing to pay their women equally could set a dangerous precedent that could hurt the women’s scene. While the popularity of women’s soccer in the USA is at an all-time high, other countries are not as fortunate. Even on the biggest stage, the Women’s World Cup only has 24 teams as opposed to the men’s 32. If the U.S. women are successful, the world could see other countries—countries with less money to work with—having to follow suit, whether that be due to ethics or just to placate the masses. The fallout could be several national women’s programs being cut altogether since there just wouldn’t be enough financial support.

So if the question is merely whether women should be paid the same, the answer is an obvious “yes.” However, with all the factors taken into consideration, women may have to suffer lower pay until such a time as the soccer world can actually support equality.

Danke danke,

Eric Wilkins

I am a strong advocate for straight shooting: say what you mean and mean what you say. No games. No finagling. And definitely don’t try to appear magnanimous when your ulterior motives are entirely selfish.

Pope Francis and his PR team were at it again in April, seeking to continue building the popular brand that he’s so confidently established since taking the reins from Pope Benedict. The ruse this time? A trip to the Greek island of Lesbos, where thousands of Syrian refugees are suffering in contained camps. After comforting those he could, Francis even took three Muslim families back to Italy with him to be clothed, sheltered, and cared for. All of this was “purely humanitarian” and not political.

As anyone should be, I am quite pleased that some relief, however little, was brought. Camp conditions were temporarily improved so the Pope wasn’t walking through a sty, and the three families that were saved now have a decidedly more settled future ahead of them. However, Francis’ claim of his actions being entirely humanitarian and not political is like a rotten apple at the grocery store—I’m not buying it.

For starters, if the trip was truly about providing aid, why only take three families? Yes, the Vatican is an exceedingly small country, but none of the refugees are going to be housed there anyway. The fortunate families will be put up nearby the Vatican while their expenses are covered until they can stand on their own, essentially meaning that the Pope’s gesture is primarily a gift of money. And if money is the key ingredient, is Francis suggesting that a mere 12 people is all the church can afford to put up? Not to get into the also-very-interesting murky waters of the Vatican’s translucent financial reports, but the Vatican City State (museums, fire department, pharmacy, and other municipal offices and services) posted a €63.5 million surplus leaving 2014 while the Holy See (diplomatic entities, the universal mission; and radio, television, and newspapers) faced a €25.62 million deficit. If nothing else, these figures serve to illustrate the fact that, should the Vatican legitimately care about the issue, money could be poured in to save a great deal more refugees. Three [families] is a very arbitrary number. A number that can be little more than a political statement.

The proposal to take in some families was reportedly pitched to Francis a mere week before his visit and he supposedly immediately accepted it. Perhaps Vatican paperwork is different, but fast-tracking something like that is rather impressive, and if papers could be filed that quickly for 12 people, again, why stop there?

We also have to take note of the fact that all three families were Syrian Muslims. No Catholics. No Christians even. The lucky few were selected by random draw and because their papers were in order.

Extreme coincidence is a very rare animal indeed. Out of the thousands of refugees, the winners of the draw all happened to be Muslim. If Francis thinks us all to be children of god, he could not have asked for a more favourable result to showcase his beliefs.

A final note is that as soon as Francis talks to the media, there is a story, and by extension, a statement. If aid is the goal there needn’t be cameras, quotes, or stories. The same effect could have easily been achieved by having a small unnamed delegation retrieve the families devoid of fanfare. That wouldn’t be a political statement. That would be “purely humanitarian.”

To finish with some of Pope Francis’ words (quoting Mother Teresa) on the matter: “It’s a drop of water in the sea. But after this drop, the sea will never be the same.” Thank god he didn’t make a political statement.

Danke danke,

Eric Wilkins

Image via the National Post

Excuse me for a moment while I quarter a flogged horse.

May played host to the Parliamentary incident of 2016 when Justin Trudeau tried unsuccessfully to leave an elbow-sized crater in the chest of NDP MP Ruth Ellen Brosseau. The fearless and honourable Brosseau managed to escape the hit-and-vote with minimal injuries.

The aftermath featured personal attacks on Brosseau, a rosary’s worth of apologies from Trudeau, and hilariously over-the-top feminist and anti-feminist pieces on the travesty of the Prime Minister striking a woman. In the end, most outlets focused on how overblown the entire thing was, how JT barely made contact with the Italian-soccer-team hopeful, and how everyone who miraculously isn’t a staunch supporter of the junior Trudeau is desperately searching for anything to poke a hole in his sails. In short, even though many articles were painting him as a brief villain, they were really making out our infallible leader to be the victim. Remarkable what a lack of grey hair can do for someone in politics.

But what has been missed in all of this is that the main point is Trudeau displayed a remarkable lack of composure in losing his temper on the floor. The elbow in and of itself as an action is relatively irrelevant; what matters is a clearly agitated Trudeau believing that any degree of physicality was appropriate in the House of Commons. He was heard telling members to, “Get the fuck out of my way,” en route to grabbing the arm of the Conservative Whip, who told Trudeau to get his hands off of him. Trudeau’s words were perhaps better suited to a schoolyard brawl than a Parliamentary vote amongst the country’s representatives. Suddenly the “youthful” moniker that has been the prime reason for T2’s popularity sways dangerously close to the very similar “immature” label. This is Canada’s PM—for all intents and purposes, the face we present to the rest of the world.

Supporters of Big Red are quick to point out that the Opposition was clearly stalling, but this only brings to attention how little the average member of the public knows about government. Politics are a game, and nothing on display that day was any different from the usual bag of tricks. Prolonged clapping and milling about on the floor have been around since Confederation. “Wasn’t he just trying to move things along?” Sure, but when was the last time you saw someone need to physically lay hands on another person to finish a vote? It’s undignified and uncalled for. And what have the Liberals been saying all along about their hopes for Parliament? Something about it being more civil so there could be more real debate? If everything supposedly starts at the top, Trudeau dropped a heavy ball for his party to catch.

Danke danke,

Eric Wilkins

On Thursday June 23, the Leave side for Brexit prevailed: 52 per cent to 48 per cent. It seemed for a time as though the world had been turned upside down. I’ve danced about the edge of many a conversation claiming how it’s a victory for racism, Britain made the wrong choice, and voters were so horribly out-of-the-loop and misinformed. My own contributions have been virtually nonexistent.

Fact of the matter is that I wasn’t very aware of the exact conditions of Brexit. I could no more list a lengthy column of “pros” than I could “cons” for Britain skipping ship. And for that reason, I was more than okay with my silence. Speaking ignorantly on a subject is one of the most dangerous things we can do, yet unfortunately seems to be a calling card of millennials. Millennials want to be a part of the discussion. We want to be involved. We want emotion. How loud has been the cry for the referendum’s result to be axed? But how many, honestly and truly, can speak to the impact—both positive and negative—of Brexit? How many can actually converse on the topic with more than the regurgitated backwash they’ve heard from a friend who’s supposedly in the know?

Control of its [Britain’s] own borders (a point often too quickly buried under racist accusations to be debated) is just one detail affected by Brexit. In the National Post Rex Murphy touched on some of the issues with significantly less fanfare, “Do any of the Remain campaigners acknowledge the great file of complaints that has grown over the last decade about the EU’s style of governance, its increasing distance from any superintending authority other than its own, its absolute divorce from democratic responsibility and the furiously paternalistic and near-imperial manner in which it treats the representatives and citizens of its member states?”

Staunch members of the Remain camp are quick to point out that the EU accounts for 44 per cent of Britain’s exports; the fact that Britain’s EU exports have actually fallen 10 per cent since 2000 is breezed by. Further still, the EU’s hold on global GDP has dropped from 30 per cent in 1993 to 24 per cent in 2013—a figure that illustrates how the rest of the world is growing faster than the EU. In addition, EU trade with Britain isn’t just going to go away. Germany, to use a top example, only exports to two other countries in the world more than to Britain. EU countries need Britain as much, if not more, than Britain needs them.

My conservative upbringings have left me with a tendency to think critically and to prefer the story of numbers, because while you can lie with statistics, not having the figures there in the first place renders it awfully difficult to produce hard evidence. But in this case, I’m at a loss. Numbers would suggest Brexit is a good idea and the politicians who planned for the scenario are on to something; however, the aftermath has proved to be anything but clear. David Cameron resigned, expected. Boris Johnson withdrew from the Conservative leadership race after Michael Gove stepped in (and all but openly blackmailed Johnson)? Politics. Nigel Farage took his leave from UKIP after his “political ambition has been achieved”? Hasn’t it just started? And now Theresa May, a Remain supporter, appears to have the inside edge. Even for politics, these waters are disturbingly murky.

I’m definitely a broken record by this point, but make sure you do your own research before sounding off on current events. If we, the mis-/under- informed, are complaining about misinformed voters, aren’t we just contributing to the problem?

Danke danke,

Eric Wilkins

“That’s why I hate bittersweet chocolate. I don’t even… what’s the point of that?” – Michael Scott, The Office

I’ve been both dreading and looking forward to writing this Lettitor for a good while. I’ve written and rewritten and written and rewritten time and time and time again. It’s not easy to say goodbye to something that’s been such an integral part of one’s life for such a significant period of time.

After five years at the Other Press I am finally following the parade of individuals, much more talented than myself, out the door. And not to get self-indulgent about it but this truly feels like a changing of the guard in the office. All the faces that welcomed me in 2011 (save the remarkable Jacey Gibb, now on the periphery of the paper as our distro man; and Angela Ho, our stalwart accounting wizard) have moved on. I was always the one green around the ears, regardless of age, and now I’m much closer to being considered one of those “dinosaurs” of student journalism. Whenever your name can be associated with extinct beings, it’s a good time to exit.

Inasmuch as I’d probably scream a hole through a pillow were I to find myself buckling down for another year at this newspaper, I know I’ll miss it. It’s impossible not to. The obvious effects of Stockholm syndrome aside, this place has been everything to me.

Sure, in the grand scheme of things, five years is a relative drop in the bucket, but it’s the timing of those years that has made the OP so special. Not to discount my education—I have had some marvellous teachers and classmates—but some of the most important events in my life have existed within the context, and been direct consequences, of the OP. I am certain that I am not unique.

The Other Press is so much more than a newspaper. Yes, you get practical training and build a portfolio of published work, but those points reduce it all to being just a job—and if you ask anyone at the paper that’s probably the last word most would use to describe it.

At the expense of invoking pop philosophy, the OP was the first time that I really felt like I belonged somewhere. There was a sense of community, of comfort, of support, of validation even, that I realized I had been missing.

I’ve come to meet interesting folks across the country, pick up and develop skills no class can ever teach, experience enough wacky anecdotes to fill a lifetime, and make some of the best friends a guy could ever ask for. It wasn’t what I signed up for at my first meeting, and I’m infinitely grateful for that.

Yes, everything comes to an end. And all the countless hours spent poring over Word documents covered in the red of “track changes,” emailing until you’re fairly confident you have no other job duty, and putting out the constant fires that pop up, really mean nothing to anyone other than yourself when it’s all said and done. It’s apropos, and more emotional than I’d like to admit, that my dear pal Cody Klyne, the EIC when I arrived, is sitting in as layout manager for the final issue of Volume 42. Almost no one in the current mess of OP staffers knows who he is, but I know without him and the many other treasured friends along the way, my own journey would be quite different. While future generations of the OP never remember their alumni, there is no doubt in my mind that the opposite is always far, far from the truth.

So, as I leave the paper in the capable hands of Lauren Kelly, I cannot thank everyone enough who has been along for the ride this year. The hard work that this fantastic staff put in for 31 issues is truly appreciated. Not to leave anyone out, thank you, the reader, for giving our words meaning. And now, since one cannot ever really say it too many times:

Danke danke,

Eric Wilkins

Photo by Mike LeMieux

When I was a professional writing student at Douglas, I used to read the Other Press every week, excited to see articles by my friends and classmates gracing its pages. Even though I was a writer, I had close ties to the paper, and I read it often, it never occurred to me to put myself out there, attend a meeting, and write for it. I always told myself that it wasn’t the sort of writing I would be good at.

It wasn’t until my dear friend and former Editor-in-Chief Eric Wilkins encouraged me to come to meetings and apply for News Editor that I first stepped into the room. Looking back, I’m so grateful to him for pushing me, and to myself for listening and putting myself out there. Starting as News Editor was abrupt, and scary, and difficult. I didn’t get the adjustment period of coming in as a tentative contributor and moving up through the ranks. But I worked hard at the News Editor position, and then as Assistant Editor, and I proved to myself that journalism was something I was good at, and it is now what I want to do as a career.

This is where I’ve now spent the last year and a half of my life, with my friends and colleagues, all working our hardest to turn out the best possible issue we can for all of you. I hope you enjoy the paper, and keep reading it throughout the year. We do our best to keep all of our content relevant to Douglas and its students, so you won’t just be reading the same articles you’re seeing everywhere else. And for those who were like me, if writing is something you’re interested in at all, come out to a meeting. At worst, you’ve wasted 30 minutes of your time, but it’s possible that it could change your life like it did mine.

It’s hard to believe that I’m now the person in charge of this fantastic team. I hope we all keep you entertained and informed each semester like the Other Press did for me.

Until next issue,

Lauren Kelly

By Lauren Kelly, Editor-in-Chief

This summer, I went to Disneyland for the first time. I’ve spent much of my life having people be shocked at the fact that no—I had never been to Disneyland. Not when I was a kid, and not as a teenager. When a coworker asked about my vacation and I told him I went to Disneyland for the first time, he replied (jokingly, I think) “Did your parents not love you as a child?”

Disneyland has this strange magic about it that always confused me. It’s an amusement park themed after children’s movies. I loved Disney movies, and amusement parks are fun, but I never really had a strong desire to go to the “Happiest Place on Earth,” even when I was young.

Don’t get me wrong—I was excited to go, and I had a fantastic time. I ran from ride to ride with my boyfriend, planning the whole day around fast passes and line lengths. It was exhausting, but great. We were lucky, too, since it was a Monday and, even though it seemed very busy, it was apparently quite slow. We did Space Mountain four times! We had an absolute blast. However—and I do think the memories were very worth it, but this can’t be ignored—it was also $125 Canadian per person just to get in.

That’s what I find kind of baffling about the whole thing, ignoring the glorification of the place itself. Many families don’t have the money to go to Disneyland, either by car or by plane, pay for accommodations, and pay for passes. It’s not fair to expect parents who are working their asses off to support their families to also be able to go on extravagant vacations. And even if there is enough disposable income to make it possible, there are usually better ways to use that money, and much cheaper ways to still have very fun family vacations.

This isn’t to take anything away from parents who take their kids to Disneyland or Disneyworld. My aunt and uncle did a full road trip with their three kids recently, and they all had an amazing time and were filled with stories and advice when I told them about my upcoming trip. Just like them, I’ll never forget the memories I made with my boyfriend at Disneyland and California Adventure. This is just a defence of those adults who can’t find it in their budgets to take their whole families to the bottom of the US, no matter how much they love them.

Photo by Darryl Dyck

The upcoming royal visit to BC and the Yukon is one that is hard to find fault with. As a Canadian who doesn’t care too much about royal goings-on, I didn’t expect too much from a visit such as this, but their itinerary has made me take notice. When I think of a royal tour, I expect an easy and pleasant trip, perhaps with some ribbon cuttings and parades thrown in.

This trip—which is 8 days with an apparently lazy 30 events—will bring them from Victoria, to Vancouver and the Downtown Eastside, Bella Bella, Kelowna, Whitehorse, Carcross, Haida Gwaii, and back to Victoria. They’ll spend much of that time engaging with local charities and spending time in aboriginal communities.

The charities that they’re focusing on are ones that share a theme with those Kate spends much of her time promoting. On September 28, they will be at the Sheway charity for mothers who are suffering from addiction, and will visit the Immigration Services Society of BC later that day. In Victoria, they’ll be meeting and spending time with members of the Kelty Mental Health Resources Centre. These are very important things to focus on, and since the royals receive so much publicity no matter what they do, they are the perfect people to bring the public’s attention to issues affecting Vancouver specifically. Issues like drug addiction and mental health affect people from all communities, and it is unfortunately very easy for many to ignore them. Having the royals focus on those issues in our cities, instead of on a more general scale, will hopefully bring much closer attention from those in the Lower Mainland.

Their tour itinerary also focuses heavily on BC and the Yukon’s aboriginal populations. In Bella Bella, they will be welcomed to the Heiltsuk First Nation with a traditional ceremony. In Whitehorse, they will tour the Kwanlen Dün Cultural Centre, and in Carcross receive another traditional welcome and spend time in the small aboriginal community. They’re spending a full day in Haida Gwaii as well, attending a ceremony at the Haida Heritage Centre and Museum. In each spot, they are spending time taking in nature by touring on mountain bikes, canoes, and boats. By taking the time to actually see and experience so much of the west coast, William and Kate are showing that they actually care about our provinces, our diversity, and our history.

Even those of us who don’t follow to royals should be grateful to them. They’re using their spotlight to bring focus to members of our society who need it, and to provide visibility to our aboriginal populations. Their tour should be very interesting and fun for them, as well, because on top of their stops, British Columbia and the Yukon are both absolutely beautiful. The only mistake they made when planning the trip is not bringing their Prince George to Prince George.

Image from Zodiac

To me, feminism is about countering the notion that feminine traits are lesser because they’re associated with women. This distaste for the feminine affects both women and men negatively, not just women, and limits the options of both genders on what is seen as acceptable. Ideally, we would reach a point where people of all genders are able to live their lives without worrying about these norms, but that will take a lot of work.

The elevation of the masculine and the denigration of the feminine is seen in nearly all aspects of life. I’ve included only a few examples.

Note: Because I’m talking about gender stereotypes and discrimination, this will have instances of being hetero-normative as well as discussing gender in a fairly binary way, and my use of feminine and masculine as descriptors will fit societal norms.

To start with, we can look at athletics, from exercise to team sports. Sports such as yoga, pole dancing, gymnastics, cheerleading, ballet, field hockey, and horse-back riding are commonly seen as sports for women. This means that they are taken less seriously than male-dominated sports, resulting in less coverage and respect for these athletes, both male and female. This designation also means that men who wish to try them out or compete in them will often be bullied and labelled gay, whether they are or not.

This is also seen in things as seemingly-inconsequential as alcoholic beverage choice. Women who drink beer and hard liquor “like men” are cool. However, women who would order a “girly drink” like a cosmopolitan, Aqua Velva, appletini, sex on the beach, or even a glass of wine wouldn’t receive this same respect. This is the opposite with men: By going against the alcohol gender-norm and ordering a girly drink, a man opens himself to being teased, if he is even secure enough to order one in the first place.

The list goes on and on. Women can express themselves through their appearance in a huge variety of ways, with it being socially acceptable for them to wear makeup, feminine clothing, heeled shoes, and colourful jewelry, but they can now also wear masculine clothing like pants and button up shirts. Men are much more limited to typically-male forms of personal expression. This is another example of association with the female gender being a negative—women had to fight to be allowed to wear what men could, but men will be bullied for dressing or presenting in feminine ways. There’s even a stigma for men who just want to throw on some concealer or foundation to even out their skin, which should be seen as gender neutral.

This eschewing of the feminine hurts the many women who do want a more traditional life, such as living as a stay-at-home mother or wife, or who want to practice traditionally-feminine hobbies like knitting, baking, and scrapbooking. Since it is now acceptable for women to enter the workforce and stay even after they have a child, it has seemingly become expected, as if it is a betrayal of our progress as a gender to choose “the old way.” It should be viewed as equally acceptable for someone of any gender to be a stay-at-home spouse or parent while their partner works, just as it has become acceptable for someone of any gender to work.

Since traits such as being caring and empathetic are considered feminine, women are often seen as the more important parent. In divorce cases where the father is clearly the better parent, the mother may still get primary custody. This stereotype can damage families and children, because women can be callous, overbearing, and any number of negative traits just like men can be, and men can be just as caring, empathetic, and “motherly.” The last two points also extend to the issue we have with maternal leave and paternal leave—parents are important regardless of gender, and all should be able to spend time with their newborns and help during a very stressful period.

On this topic, obvious displays of emotion such as crying are seen as feminine, and many men are raised believing that they have to always be tough, logical, and unemotional. This makes it less likely for men who are dealing with trauma, abuse, or mental health problems to get the help that they need, or even open up to others. Horrifyingly, men who report being sexually assaulted are often not taken as seriously as women—not that women are often taken seriously—because they receive even worse victim blaming. They’re a man; couldn’t they fight their attacker off? If the perpetrator was female, why wouldn’t they like it? Statistics also show a much higher rate of completed suicide in men than women, which is influenced by many factors. However, the ability to open up and feel okay getting help and attending therapy could only help.

I have seen criticisms of feminism and modern-day society saying that we want to turn all men into girly wimps, or are against traits viewed as masculine. This isn’t the case at all. If you are a man or woman who wants to behave or show masculine traits, that is fantastic, because it is what you want to do. However, if you’re a person of any gender who wishes to behave or present femininely, that should be equally accepted and respected.

To conclude: Feminism is, at least to me, about helping people of both genders have the option of choice by elevating things which are feminine to the same level as those that are masculine. Perhaps one day it will be acceptable for anyone who wants to act in a stereotypically feminine manner without facing scrutiny. We can work towards this by accepting alternate forms of expression, taking the problems of those around us seriously regardless of their gender, and working to make our actions as inclusive as possible.

Photo via www.businesspundit.com

By Lauren Kelly, Editor-in-Chief

This past week, Donald Trump made his first apology during his entire campaign. A reporter had found a recording of Trump in 2005, in which he stated that, since he was rich, he could do anything he wanted to women, including the now-famous “grab her by the pussy.”

Although this did happen over 10 years ago, it comes after a long string of sexist comments towards women, during his campaign and in the years prior. He has made many sexual or rude comments about the women in his Miss USA pageants, as well as about various reporters and news anchors during the campaign. His issues with women haven’t only been verbal. A previous business partner, Jill Harth, accused him of groping her repeatedly, as well as forcing himself on her in his daughter Ivanka’s bedroom.

And yes, he did apologize when this all came to light—by making light of it, and then immediately pointing the finger at Bill Clinton, who is not running for president. Since then, he has dismissed the comments as being “locker room talk” that all men engage in, which has prompted many men, especially athletes, to speak out against Donald Trump and his attempt to normalize his comments.

Earlier on in the election, Trump was so off the wall that I figured he was just catering to the populace to get the Republican nomination, at which point he would get more serious. I couldn’t be more wrong—but then again, I didn’t know much about Trump’s past. Since becoming the nominee, he has shown 100 per cent that those are his real opinions, or at least the ones he’s going to stay true to, and he has also shown that he has no idea what he’s doing.

This election has been sad and worrying, both because a man like this could gain the support of so many people, and hold it through all of this, and also because his terrible behaviour is being vindicated by all of them. I watched one CNN interview with a female supporter who parroted him impressively when asked about Trump’s comments, responding by calling out Bill Clinton, saying everything was in the past, and then immediately changing the topic to bashing Hillary.

These responses need to be shut down completely. Trump can’t be allowed to weasel his way out of accusations such as these by hiding behind them. Just because Bill Clinton did terrible things, it doesn’t mean Trump can, too, and it doesn’t make Hillary a bad person for being married to him. It certainly doesn’t make her a worse person than Trump. Just because some men think it’s okay to talk about women like that, doesn’t mean that it’s okay that he does, especially when he could be the next president of one of the most influential countries in the world.

It makes me hopeful to see so many people turning against Trump in the wake of these revelations, including fellow Republicans such as John McCain and Speaker Paul D. Ryan, as well as evangelical leaders. Hopefully this trend will continue, his numbers will continue to plummet, and we can finally move forward from this disaster of an election.

Image via The Daily Hive

By Lauren Kelly, Editor-in-Chief

Going into this past weekend, everything and everyone was abuzz with warnings of the upcoming storm. It was a multi-day, multi-wave system set to attack the Lower Mainland with aggressive winds and pounding rain. People prepared their flashlights, water, and canned goods. We were expecting something possibly worse than last year’s storm, which knocked out power in some areas for multiple days.

Well, it’s come and gone now. Overall, it wasn’t as bad as we had expected. Many have taken to social media to mock its severity, as it was mostly underwhelming. On Saturday night, the expected peak of the storm, I left a birthday party at midnight to a light drizzle. It’s easy to look at this and shrug off the whole event. However, we do have to remember a few things.

We are incredibly lucky to live where we do. We don’t often have to worry about big storms the way many places on the east coast do. This is especially apparent in the shadow of Hurricane Matthew, which caused billions in damages and resulted in 1,384 deaths. While we clean up after our storm, a remnant of Typhoon Songda, we should be thankful that we don’t have to suffer through catastrophes such as those. Our cost of living is super high, but that comes bundled with the fact that where we live is pretty safe (ignoring the always-looming mega-quake).

Most importantly, a teenager lost his life to this storm. Sixteen-year-old Shakir Salaam died in hospital after a tree fell on him Friday on his way home from school in Surrey. His friends, family, school, and rugby teammates are all in mourning now. When people are sitting around talking about how underwhelming the storm was, they should remember Shakir.

We shouldn’t let the severity of this storm lull us, though. We need to take every storm warning that comes out seriously, to make sure that we’re prepared in case it is severe, or the power goes out for days like has happened many times. And we need to be stocked and ready for when the earthquake does come, whether it’s tomorrow or 30 years from now. Until then, be grateful that we live where we do, and we don’t have to be scared of hurricanes like our eastern neighbours.

Image via Thinkstock

By Lauren Kelly, Editor-in-Chief

Halloween is almost here! When we were kids, Halloween marked a magical time when we got dressed up and received all the candy we could eat from neighbours and strangers alike. Now, many adults and teens celebrate the holiday by getting together and drinking, often in costume. This Halloween is an unfortunate one, however. It’s on a Monday, the worst possible day for such an exciting holiday. While many people will be attending Halloween parties on the weekend, this leaves poor Halloween day out to dry.

That doesn’t mean we have to leave Halloween to the kids, though. These days, I see fewer and fewer trick or treaters, and last year when I passed out candy in what I thought would be a high-traffic area, we received three groups all night (and had a lot of leftover candy to snack on). I would have been super happy to see some older kids or adults turning up near the end in some form of costume to relieve me of all my candy. It’s fun to see people of all ages out there enjoying themselves.

I remember as a teenager there was a bit of a stigma around it. Suddenly you’ve aged out of it being socially acceptable to trick or treat, and now you were expected to either party or do nothing. Now, as an adult, it’s become acceptable to dress up, and almost expected if you’re going to an event. If you need to come up with something last minute, hit Life & Style and Humour in this issue for some costume ideas. Either way, to those of you who are getting dressed up for the weekend, go out Monday night and make the most of the money and time you spent on dressing up by scooping some free stuff!

And if you’re not the type to party or trick or treat, celebrate by staying in and watching some of the films Cazzy has covered this month, or reading the comics Brittney has reviewed. Pass out goodies and check out other people’s costumes. Get in the spirit, and have a great time—whatever that is to you. After all, November 1 starts the long trek to the winter holidays, so now’s the last time to sneak in some dark and spooky before bright colours and cheer is everywhere again.

There aren’t that many opportunities for group celebration in Western culture, so go out and make the most of what we do have, regardless of what is considered acceptable for people our age. And if anyone judges you for it, who cares—you’re having fun, and that’s what matters.

Image via midnightsunak.com

Just over a year ago, the Canadian election came to a close and Justin Trudeau was named Prime Minister. For many Canadians, the election was a time of hope for change, as Stephen Harper was finally removed from power. Trudeau was young, fresh-faced, and ready to lead the country. Mulcair and May were both solid options as well, and none had any scandals under their belt. Overall, the chances of a better Canada were looking pretty great, and coverage of the elections was largely positive.

The feeling is very different going into the last week of this election. As storm cloud after storm cloud rolls in to dump on one nominee or another, neither is arriving at the end looking positive. Instead of hope or anticipation, many seem to feel resignation or horror, which should never be the end result of democracy. Many supporters of Hillary view her as the lesser evil instead of an exciting, promising president. Many Trump supporters are just Republicans who can’t bring themselves to vote Democrat. Overall, whoever wins, the majority of the population won’t be genuinely excited, or hopeful—just happy the other evil didn’t get in.

Of course, it would be disingenuous to ignore that they both do have their small legion of adamant supporters. Many are still avidly supporting Hillary because she will be the first female president, and because she is incredibly experienced, even if there have been many knocks against her over this election. Many are aggressively supporting Trump in his fight against mass media, the election system, political correctness, immigrants, and so forth. Members of both categories will be ecstatic if their chosen one makes it in.

However, for most, November 8 is exciting not because they’re hopeful for the result, but because they want it to just be over. Last year, Canadians were able to excitedly look forward to the results. Eight years ago, America was filled with the same giddy anticipation about President Barack Obama. It’s sad that this election has fallen as far as it has. Now, the final choice is between pro-establishment and anti-establishment, and all the baggage both candidates carry. Will America have another Obama, just much less likeable? Will they instead elect an unpredictable man riding a cult of personality?

We’ll find out in one more week. Then we can all sigh, move on, and look forward to having some hope four years from now.