Now that the lovely month of Movember is upon us, I feel the rant vein in my forehead starting to bulge out. Pulsing to the rhythm of my elevated heartbeat, it urges me to spew vitriolic bile onto my keyboard in the form of semi-coherent ramblings.

So why does Movember make me so poetic? Mostly because I reject the notion of charity requiring a gimmick; be it growing a ridiculous mustache, riding a bicycle for X number of kilometers, or shaving your head. Yes, I understand that having a “month” dedicated to whatever chic disease is at the forefront of popular discourse raises awareness for that already over-saturated illness, but adding that gimmick says to the world, “I might be inclined to be a compassionate, generous human being that cares for my fellow man, but first, what will you do for me?” Even something as hokey as growing a mustache makes charity a transaction, rather than a donation.

The repetitiveness of these months is also an issue. It’s prostate cancer every single year. What about other diseases or issues? Lou Gehrig is rolling around in his grave. I have a good friend that was diagnosed with Lupus, and one suffering from alcoholism. I’ve cared deeply for women who have been sexually abused. I know and love people with brain injuries, Crohn’s disease, brain tumors, diabetes… Why would I ever donate to prostate cancer? Where is all the love and charity for Lupus?

Having a prostate cancer awareness day would be fine, where those who are willing could panhandle for donations. Why does it take a whole month to see how gross some asshole’s face gets to inspire people to do something compassionate? Having a day, or a week at most, would give more opportunities for other social needs to be addressed, rather than focusing only on a select few.

Does society need our gimmicks? Lupus, for example, actually has a month: October, for those of you wondering. But nobody grows any facial hair. Nobody rides their bike halfway across the country. Popular culture has not adopted Lupus as the new, fashionable, ghetto-fabulous disease of the season. Is it not marketable enough? Is that really what charity is based upon? Do we have to rely on the popular opinions of tweens or whomever it is that dictate market policy for a disease to have a chance at getting substantial funding?

In all honesty, we probably do. Hence the bile.

Being in a third world country, you begin to notice a few key things about it. Mostly, it’s terrible. Extreme examples of poverty, apathy towards human life, sickness and malnutrition, whole loads of things that really just suck pretty hard. And if you’re anything like me, as an armchair pseudo-intellectual, you tend to think about how one might be able to make a difference over there while sitting in a comfy chair, in a relatively large, environmentally-controlled room.

I had been to India, and I was speaking to someone who had been doing relief work in Haiti, and I asked them if they had thought about improving Haiti as I had thought about improving India. How do you make a country less shitty? The answers are fairly obvious. In no particular order: sanitation, better infrastructure, education for women, education overall, better healthcare, better safety nets for the poor, less corruption, better heath and safety standards, and so on and so on and so on. Easy, right? Well how do you implement them? Where do you even start?

A lot of people immediately go for education as the number one. Educate people, and they’ll see how crummy life is by themselves, and then they’ll take steps to fix it. Ideal, really. But then I heard a few stories, one of which stood out in particular. My tour guide was telling our group of an instance where the Indian federal government had set up this program where students would be given free lunches. It’s great, right? For children who might not be getting even a single meal a day, having a free one waiting for them at school is a great incentive to go and educate themselves. Problem solved; India begins the long road to rehabilitation. Unfortunately for India, one of the main rules there is that nothing is allowed to go right. What ended up happening is that by the time the money for the lunches had made it to schools, it had been skimmed from so much that there was hardly any money left for the food, and what ended up being served was so unsanitary that a bunch of school kids died.

So is fixing the corruption the first step? It’s really difficult to say. When issues like women’s rights, unsafe drinking water, and poverty are staring you in the face, it’s almost impossible to say which one needs the most attention.

Even if you do decide to which to address first, and I do mean you, the reader, in this instance, the one who obviously wants to make a difference in the world, what can you actually do? It’s not like you can go up to the leader of a country and be like, “Hey mister president, you should stop being corrupt. Listen to me, for I am white and privileged!” Even if you could, having the Great White Saviour solve all the world’s woes is a problem unto itself. Countries should have the right to fix their problems for themselves. For one, those problems are more likely to stay fixed that way, and for two, there won’t ever be the niggling feeling that ol’ whitey is only after oil or out to influence the local culture.

So do you just sit around, ignoring the world’s problems while they either solve themselves or spiral out of control into a fiery inferno? I suppose you could if you really wanted to. I am merely text on a page, with no influence over you save for my reason, charm, and the dashing good looks which I assure you I possess.

There are charity donations, but charity is a fickle concept. Charity cannot fix problems. It is the “giving a man a fish” scenario. You might help a person out of a bind, but they are still stuck in a place where that bind is the norm. On top of that, there are questions as to where that money you donate actually goes. Suspicious administration fees are one thing, but there is also the question of whether or not what you’re donating to is good for the community. Are you buying food for them? Is the food you are buying in direct competition with local farmers, who now have to compete in a market where their competition offers free products? I’m not saying don’t donate to charity. It can be a powerful tool, but you have to make sure that your donation isn’t going to be a tragic waste of money.

Volunteering is another possible solution for the average idiot to help out those less fortunate. There are issues here too though; those similar to the issues with charity. Is your volunteer work something that a local could do? If you have a special skill or knowledge that just simply isn’t available in bulk in whatever country you’re volunteering in, then yes, you are an asset to that community. But if you’re helping out for free where a local could be doing the work and getting paid, then maybe think twice about the volunteer work that you’re doing.

Then of course there’s just talking about it. Who knows what solutions you might come up with?

None of the things you do will fix a country. That is up to its people. But you can make a difference on a more community-based level. And if you want to, then nothing is stopping you and you should definitely go for it. If you don’t want to, don’t feel bad because you are one among many. You’re reading this though, so  you’re at least being forced to think about it, and maybe that’s enough.

 

 

Post-script: I am not getting into local help versus international help. This article is only about international because that’s what the conversation that sparked this was about. I personally prefer local charity over international charity, and if you want to talk to me about my reasons why feel free.

You probably all know what the Yin Yang symbol is.

Yay pictures! Everybody loves pictures instead of text.That’s the one. That’s for those of you who think that my blog has too many words in it and not enough pictures. Anyway, as most of you know, the Yin Yang symbolizes harmony, balance… you know, Zen junk. What you might not have known is that Yin and Yang actually represent stuff on their own. Yin is the female side, and represents traditional feminine attributes: compassion, compromise, maternalism. Yang, the male side: assertiveness, strength, exertion. They represent other things too, like day and night, hot and cold, heaven and earth; basically things nobody cares about, and should care even less about for this article.

Based on the title, you can probably already assume what I’m driving at here. We live in a world dominated by male culture, and male attributes. This isn’t even just having far too many penises making critical worldly decisions, but further than that, the attributes we look for in leaders are typically from the Yang side. We want stoic leaders, uncompromising, shrewd and strong. Not just in our politics, but in our businesses, faculties, and other places with an emphasis on hierarchy. Even if we don’t want men to lead us, we want their attributes.

The problem with the domination of one side of the balance over the other is that its attributes become corrupted. Strength becomes power-mongering, uncompromising becomes unfeeling, and we are left with greedy, aggressive sons of bitches ruling our planet.

Think of all the shitty things that happen in life outside of like, disease or natural disasters. How many of them are what happens when a male attribute is taken to its extreme? Think of the dictators, the greedy corporate heads and bankers, the corrupt politicians, the criminals and gangs. How many Yin characteristics do you think they possess? How many Yang?

Jackson Katz is a doctor, so you know you can trust him, and he discusses the prevalence of male attributes, how we as men are socially pressured into conforming to those attributes, and the harm they cause in their extremes in a neat little video called Tough Guise. Unfortunately this video is is no longer available for free in its entirety, but here’s a short synopsis which you should definitely watch if you have seven minutes to spare:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3exzMPT4nGI

Popular contemporary feminism is even pushing women into these roles as well. Women need to be strong, assertive, and powerful. Women need to be CEOs, doctors, and politicians. In the media today, women are constantly being portrayed as basically brutish men. It’s “progress” because now women are drinking, swearing, and fighting alongside their male counterparts. How many times have you seen a female character in a movie chastise another female character by saying, “Don’t be such a girl!” The idea is still that the Yin characteristics are weak and unnecessary, and that if a woman wants to be successful, she needs to embrace the Yang.

But in a world where the Yang is running rampant and corrupt, do we really need more people actively pursuing dominant roles? Nurses, teachers, caregivers, the Yin-oriented careers are still being left behind. Being a nurse has nowhere near the amount of recognition and acclaim as a doctor, despite being just as important to the recovery of the patient. Teachers struggle for respect because “they only work 8 months of the year,” despite not just the actual amount of hours teachers put in per year, but also the incredible amount of influence they exert on the character and intellect of our children. We don’t need a world dominated by men and men-like women; we need to foster the Yin if we want to be somewhat successful in unfucking up this planet.

I’m not saying that male attributes and men are terrible, nor am I saying that women shouldn’t pursue typically male-oriented careers. Just that we need a balance with our feminine characteristics. It’s Yin Yang; harmony between the two. Emphasis on the female side would leave us simpering wrecks, but as a culture we are already shooting way too far in the other direction. We’ve had decades of women in pantsuits. How about some men in aprons?

Holy shit. TWO pictures!? SLOTH!!