Many thanks to Lexi for inspiring the title for this post.
It's been a long time. I did some preliminary clean up of some YouTube postings and now I can hopefully get back down to business.
I started this blog as an outlet because, lets face it, we are our own biggest fans and worst enemies. I like to hear the sound of my own voice a lot more than other people enjoy hearing me.
Much has happened since my last post. I'm getting ready to graduate this year and wondering what I should do next, Wolfgang destroyed any remnants of his blog, we have a cat, etc.
More importantly, this term I'm taking some interesting courses regarding international development and gender roles in war and peace. These topics got me thinking about the resilience of gender stereotypes. Here is some required reading: http://news.therecord.com/article/665234
It seems that even in the face of disaster, the preconceptions of gender and gender roles don't take a vacation. Who decided that women were that much more responsible, caring, nurturing and all round better human specimens than our male counterparts? Was there a time when men and women interacted on a completely level playing field? If so, when did this divisions arise and when did we decide to abide by them en mass?
Personally, I have never been in a situation where I experienced a barrier to success or opportunities because of my gender. However, I can identify several recent examples where my gender has come into play in jest (me - "I made pie today", male friend - "oh marry me"). I don't want to come off as an ultra feminist. I don't have the personal experience I believe is required to take a position on gender conspiracy (I'm not trying to refute the lack of representation in the political sphere however, there isn't much of an argument there).
What shocks me is the resistance of gender stereotypes to change. I know plenty of women in their early 20's that are not interested in the slightest in child bearing, marriage or otherwise financial dependence on anyone else. There is an emerging belief that we can do it on our own and yet these ideas prevail. Is it just me or are these new belief systems a defiance to the existing system? Perhaps even a threat.
I have made peace with the fact that if I want to go anywhere in politics I will have to join a party (sell my soul, ha ha). My problem is being sidelined, even subconsciously, within my field. I don't want people to think that just because of my gender, physical characteristics, etc. I should be excluded from debates regarding defense, economics, foreign relations and policy. There is also something of a catch-22 in the realm of successful women. Examples that come to mind are Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin (Note: no affiliation or implied support intended). Mrs. Clinton has often been criticized for her adoption of 'male characteristics' where on the flip side Palin has been criticized for being too feminine.
I want to know what is expected. As far as I can tell, as a woman I'm not allowed to be too feminine or too masculine if I want to succeed. Is there a middle ground?
I don't want to make this a sob story for women. I totally understand the under appreciation that women feel but I like to put myself in the shoes of men from time to time and pretend that I've successfully 'grown a pair'. If I were male I would be insulted at the way society has decided that I can be trained to be emotionless and cold, that I am completely incapable of controlling sexual urges and as a result need to separate women from central social spheres such as religion, politics and education.
It seems that everyday there is a new article in the news that depicts situations that on the surface seem to defy existing preconceptions of gender. Example, female suicide bombers (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6330687). On the surface, a woman that defies stereotypes by not only taking her own life in one of the most violent ways possible but also intentionally taking the lives of others in the process. Underneath, a woman that was promised a better life for her family (money, food, a better home, access to social services, health care and education for her surviving family members) if only she'll do this one little thing. Reinforcing the self-sacrificing nurturer.
Where does it end? Extreme tactics are a response to a build up of small problems ignored. Is representation the problem? Would the world be a better place if women were in more influential positions of power? I doubt it.
No one listens anymore. I'm all for information sharing and technological advancement but what good is any of that when our society at a grass roots level is stubbornly resistant to change? My experience with people is that we don't change until a crisis situation erupts and forces change or we fail over and over in efforts to avoid it and finally cave. It's laborious and ultimately costly in time and energy.
So leave a comment and until next time,
*live long and prosper*
-A
Monday, February 1, 2010
Thursday, October 16, 2008
"LOOK AT THAT CLEVER DISTRACTION DIRECTLY BEHIND YOU!!"
Hello Boys and Girls! Here is your required reading.
Now whether you chose you read that or not isn't the point... but if you aren't more studious than prepare for an epic FAIL!
I came across this article earlier this week when I was reading the K/W Record. As usual I had showed up at work obscenely early and it seemed better than doing nothing.
When I read this article I tried to remember the last time I actually noticed a roadside memorial the last time I was on the highway. It may have been sooner than last year but I usually see them and then disregard them immediately. I have never really given them much thought because in the event I notice one, my thought process is something like, "that's too bad...... HEY! Gas is cheaper here!".
CTV has even quoted the blogger community which is supposedly abuzz with debate on this topic with one person suggesting the 'shrines' are a reminder to drive safely while another person believes them to be 'distasteful to the max'.
I really don't see what the big deal is with them. Although I can honestly say that I agree with the idea of proposed time limits. Some municipalities have proposed a 3 month limit while others have a more prolonged year limit following the death of a person.
CTV supplies us with 2 quotes on opposite extremes:
"I have asked my loved ones to ensure that no such memorial goes up in the event that I die an untimely death. A tombstone in a cemetery somewhere will suffice for me."
and
"People grieve in their own ways, and it doesn't really hurt me to let them. I'm willing to overlook an eyesore if it's helping someone get over the loss. How selfish is it not to?"
The first quote is from someone who is truely playing the devils advocate. I have never felt compelled to build a roadside memorial for someone who was killed untimely in a vehicle related accident. I don't think this person has either and as a result does not understand what motivations a person could have for building a shrine.
The second person is a pushover. The "say what they want to hear" guy. I can understand how a shrine or memorial can act as a reminder and help with the grieving process in the short term, however, in the long term the removal of these shrines also helps with the healing.
It's much like when there are 2 people who have been married almost as long as they've been alive and one of them dies. For a while afterward the surviving spouse takes comfort in being around their loved ones abandoned things, but in the long term the healthiest thing for them to do is start giving away or disposing of those things because they are only holding the surviving person back from fully healing.
I guess you could say I agree with Gord Steeves.
So while some municipalities have enacted time limitations on roadside memorials, Calgary has decided to fund a study to determine whether or not these shrines negatively effect driver behaviour:
'The leader of the study in Calgary, Richard Tay, says memorials are an increasingly familiar sight on North American roads and everyone seems to have an opinion about them. That, he adds, makes if hard for politicians to impose rules.
"We need to have scientific evidence to base our decision on."'
I don't agree with this... Why bother wasting money on this? It really smells like a "A new study reports that cellphones cause cancer in rats" study.
I have a better idea. Keep your eyes on the road.
So what do you guys think about this? I know its been awhile since I've posted but I don't appologize.
*PEACE*
Now whether you chose you read that or not isn't the point... but if you aren't more studious than prepare for an epic FAIL!
I came across this article earlier this week when I was reading the K/W Record. As usual I had showed up at work obscenely early and it seemed better than doing nothing.
When I read this article I tried to remember the last time I actually noticed a roadside memorial the last time I was on the highway. It may have been sooner than last year but I usually see them and then disregard them immediately. I have never really given them much thought because in the event I notice one, my thought process is something like, "that's too bad...... HEY! Gas is cheaper here!".
CTV has even quoted the blogger community which is supposedly abuzz with debate on this topic with one person suggesting the 'shrines' are a reminder to drive safely while another person believes them to be 'distasteful to the max'.
I really don't see what the big deal is with them. Although I can honestly say that I agree with the idea of proposed time limits. Some municipalities have proposed a 3 month limit while others have a more prolonged year limit following the death of a person.
CTV supplies us with 2 quotes on opposite extremes:
"I have asked my loved ones to ensure that no such memorial goes up in the event that I die an untimely death. A tombstone in a cemetery somewhere will suffice for me."
and
"People grieve in their own ways, and it doesn't really hurt me to let them. I'm willing to overlook an eyesore if it's helping someone get over the loss. How selfish is it not to?"
The first quote is from someone who is truely playing the devils advocate. I have never felt compelled to build a roadside memorial for someone who was killed untimely in a vehicle related accident. I don't think this person has either and as a result does not understand what motivations a person could have for building a shrine.
The second person is a pushover. The "say what they want to hear" guy. I can understand how a shrine or memorial can act as a reminder and help with the grieving process in the short term, however, in the long term the removal of these shrines also helps with the healing.
It's much like when there are 2 people who have been married almost as long as they've been alive and one of them dies. For a while afterward the surviving spouse takes comfort in being around their loved ones abandoned things, but in the long term the healthiest thing for them to do is start giving away or disposing of those things because they are only holding the surviving person back from fully healing.
I guess you could say I agree with Gord Steeves.
So while some municipalities have enacted time limitations on roadside memorials, Calgary has decided to fund a study to determine whether or not these shrines negatively effect driver behaviour:
'The leader of the study in Calgary, Richard Tay, says memorials are an increasingly familiar sight on North American roads and everyone seems to have an opinion about them. That, he adds, makes if hard for politicians to impose rules.
"We need to have scientific evidence to base our decision on."'
I don't agree with this... Why bother wasting money on this? It really smells like a "A new study reports that cellphones cause cancer in rats" study.
I have a better idea. Keep your eyes on the road.
So what do you guys think about this? I know its been awhile since I've posted but I don't appologize.
*PEACE*
Saturday, July 12, 2008
*LET'S TALK ABOUT SEX*
I've always been a guys-girl (if that makes sense). For most of my life I have had a couple female friends but most of them felt the way I do... that 'traditional' female ideals are bullshit.
I've been told that for the most part I just get what guys think. (It's not that hard really... most guys say what they mean and mean what they say. For Example: Girl: "What are you thinking?" Guy: "Nothing". Seriously, sometimes guys really are thinking about nothing)
I tried for awhile to do the girl thing where I'd buy Cosmo and other magazines (I still do but not as religiously). I realized that if you pay attention all of those magazines are just the same regurgitated stories revamped ("Holy Crap! Girl-On-Top is STILL the hottest position because it 'let's you be in control'?!? Where have I been?!?")
And another thing, why is it that when these magazines (and independent bloggers alike) post "THE TOP 10 RELATIONSHIP WARNING SIGNS YOU SHOULD WATCH OUT FOR" it's always aimed at women. I don't know this for sure but you'd think that since media influence says men are clueless to the female psyche that they'd have these articles out there for men.
I came across one of these articles whilst perusing Boinkology today:
The Top Six Relationship Red Flags (*insert imperial march here*)
SUBMITTED BY THE FRISKY: Everyone has their faults…even relationship bloggers who are skilled and rational lovers (ahem, coupled with being a little neurotic). But when you’re with someone, it’s all about understanding and complimenting each other’s strengths and weakness. However, some things are flexible, some things are sticking points and some things are straight up warning signs. Even though it’s hard to keep your eyes open when all you feel is sex and love, turning a blind eye will bite you in the booty eventually. So no matter how in love you are, you gotta look out for red flags. Michael Snayerson wrote some for dudes that still totally apply for us ladies, from rudeness to waiters to dirty underwear. We love that he thinks a man should always offer to pay on the first date, although his aversion to eggs and ketchup may seem a little irrational. To tell our side, we’ve assembled some red flags that are visible even through the sex haze and should not be ignored!
(*** T-Notes: The opening paragraph to this post isn't all too bad. I'm sure they're out there somewhere but I think being out to dinner with someone in general who is blatantly rude to the server is a jerk-face. It's a little more than a red flag for the simple reason that if someone treats a complete stranger like an asshole than how do they treat the people they're supposed to care about? I would also never credit someone who clearly writes what he thinks ladies want to hear versus what he actually thinks. I guarantee Micheal Snayerson doesn't mind paying for dinner on the first date, HOWEVER, I think we can all agree that it's nice to go out with someone who doesn't expect to be paid for. ***)
1. He Knows Women Everywhere You Go Oh, and they know him! It’s good to date a social guy, but too much of a good thing isn’t a good thing at all.
(*** T-Notes: There are a lot of things that can be said about this one. As a woman who knows and is friends with a lot of people of the opposing gender, this point isn't fair. I once dated a guy who knew a lot of women, we had the odd tiff here and there where he would accuse me of being jealous of him talking to so many women whenever we went out. The fact of the matter is that he got along better with women than he did with other guys. If I had originally posted this one it would have been more to the idea that if you're with someone who knows a lot of people of the opposite sex and whenever they see these people your partner acts like you don't exist, you may have a problem. There is nothing wrong with being social as long as it isn't hurting the people you care for. ***)
2. Doesn’t Dress Up For Dates. You are beautiful, special, important and it just took you an hour to slap on some make up and coordinate a cute outfit. If you’re willing to walk around in pumps so high you could dunk a basketball, the least he can do is put on a nice shirt. If he’s not trying to impress you too, you’re wasting your time.
(*** T-Notes: Who really goes on 'dates' anymore? And furthermore, where are you going on your night out? Are you going to the local pub for a night of live music? If so that hour you spent 'coordinating an outfit' and those gigantic heels you're going to wear are kind of retarded. Part of being with someone is being okay with how each other looks right after the gym or first thing in the morning after a bender. From experience I could wear a black eyeliner for a night out and a brown one during the day. The response from my guy? "Oh... I can't see it... there's no difference." Besides, if you spend all of your time trying to look fantastic when you are going somewhere nice it won't be anything new. If he looks presentable and comfortable for dates consider yourself lucky! At least you know that he likes you enough and is comfortable enough around you to not look completely out of his element. ***)
3. Never Picks Up On Your Calls Or Only Texts You First of all, texts are the bane of the modern dating experience. If he’s afraid to let you reach out and touch him via technology, i.e. the phone, he’s already avoiding the easiest way to communicate with you. Lame!
(*** T-Notes: This is probably one of the most common misunderstandings. If most of the time he texts you rather than calls you he could genuinely be very busy. Maybe he's in an important business meeting risking termination by texting you while his boss drones on about surpluses... could happen. It's highly unfortunate that the female species is conditioned to think "if he doesn't take my calls he hates me/is cheating on me/thinks I'm psychotic". Although don't get me wrong I'm sure there are people on both sides of the gender fence that could stand to back off in this area. ***)
4. Friends and Family Disapprove Whether the people close to you hate him or the people close to him hate you, it’s bad. After all, how are you going to go places together or worse yet, what’s the point of having a partner if you’re forced to go to things alone due to personality differences? Listen to the people who love you. You’ve already picked them to be in your life, you can find someone else who will slip right in.
(*** T-Notes: Have you made an effort to figure out why his friends/family don't like you? It could simply be that they're afraid you could be a permanent fixture in their lives (which shouldn't be taken personally, it's largely fear on their part). In these situations people should understand that there is always a bigger person. You need to be that bigger person if you want your relationship to work out. You and your partner need to discuss the options you have. Not just "his family hates me so I'm going to dump him"... don't be retarded. Your family and friends, as much as they can be assets, don't have the full view of what it's like from your description alone. And besides, the bigger person would never gang up on their partner with they're friends. ***)
5. He Insists On Something You Don’t Like Whether it’s anal sex or a flea bag restaurant, if it’s not his birthday, he doesn’t always get his way. If he really cared about you and your opinion you would be able to do things you both enjoy. But if he’s consistently choosing to be a selfish jerk, you should too and dump his egocentric butt.
(*** T-Notes: So if he insists on something you don't like he's an egocentric jerk? Didn't you say right from the beginning, "it’s all about understanding and complimenting each other’s strengths and weakness"? So understand this: compromise. 'Nuff said. ... unless it's the Stratty Theater versus Famous Players. That's not even the same sport. ***)
6. You Only Take Bad Pictures Together The camera is a scientific device that never lies. It gives you a close up look at your chemistry, even if it’s a crowd shot. So, if you don’t look good together for some reason, albeit superficial, it’s a warning sign.
(*** T-Notes: The camera is not a scientific device. The fact of the matter is some people are just naturally more photogenic than others. If either of you looks just horrible in pictures that doesn't mean your relationship is doomed to failure. It means you suck at posing for pictures. If you take #6 literally you might as well ask the magic 8-ball if you're going to get married... and don't forget to listen to it... after all, it's magic right? ***)
So that's it. I've wanted to do a post on this kind of thing for while and now I can die happy.
Someone has to stick up for the guys of the world.
I just realized we didn't actually talk about sex... So here it is: Watch yourself sometime.. the faces you make can be hilarious.
*PEACE*
I've been told that for the most part I just get what guys think. (It's not that hard really... most guys say what they mean and mean what they say. For Example: Girl: "What are you thinking?" Guy: "Nothing". Seriously, sometimes guys really are thinking about nothing)
I tried for awhile to do the girl thing where I'd buy Cosmo and other magazines (I still do but not as religiously). I realized that if you pay attention all of those magazines are just the same regurgitated stories revamped ("Holy Crap! Girl-On-Top is STILL the hottest position because it 'let's you be in control'?!? Where have I been?!?")
And another thing, why is it that when these magazines (and independent bloggers alike) post "THE TOP 10 RELATIONSHIP WARNING SIGNS YOU SHOULD WATCH OUT FOR" it's always aimed at women. I don't know this for sure but you'd think that since media influence says men are clueless to the female psyche that they'd have these articles out there for men.
I came across one of these articles whilst perusing Boinkology today:
The Top Six Relationship Red Flags (*insert imperial march here*)
SUBMITTED BY THE FRISKY: Everyone has their faults…even relationship bloggers who are skilled and rational lovers (ahem, coupled with being a little neurotic). But when you’re with someone, it’s all about understanding and complimenting each other’s strengths and weakness. However, some things are flexible, some things are sticking points and some things are straight up warning signs. Even though it’s hard to keep your eyes open when all you feel is sex and love, turning a blind eye will bite you in the booty eventually. So no matter how in love you are, you gotta look out for red flags. Michael Snayerson wrote some for dudes that still totally apply for us ladies, from rudeness to waiters to dirty underwear. We love that he thinks a man should always offer to pay on the first date, although his aversion to eggs and ketchup may seem a little irrational. To tell our side, we’ve assembled some red flags that are visible even through the sex haze and should not be ignored!
(*** T-Notes: The opening paragraph to this post isn't all too bad. I'm sure they're out there somewhere but I think being out to dinner with someone in general who is blatantly rude to the server is a jerk-face. It's a little more than a red flag for the simple reason that if someone treats a complete stranger like an asshole than how do they treat the people they're supposed to care about? I would also never credit someone who clearly writes what he thinks ladies want to hear versus what he actually thinks. I guarantee Micheal Snayerson doesn't mind paying for dinner on the first date, HOWEVER, I think we can all agree that it's nice to go out with someone who doesn't expect to be paid for. ***)
1. He Knows Women Everywhere You Go Oh, and they know him! It’s good to date a social guy, but too much of a good thing isn’t a good thing at all.
(*** T-Notes: There are a lot of things that can be said about this one. As a woman who knows and is friends with a lot of people of the opposing gender, this point isn't fair. I once dated a guy who knew a lot of women, we had the odd tiff here and there where he would accuse me of being jealous of him talking to so many women whenever we went out. The fact of the matter is that he got along better with women than he did with other guys. If I had originally posted this one it would have been more to the idea that if you're with someone who knows a lot of people of the opposite sex and whenever they see these people your partner acts like you don't exist, you may have a problem. There is nothing wrong with being social as long as it isn't hurting the people you care for. ***)
2. Doesn’t Dress Up For Dates. You are beautiful, special, important and it just took you an hour to slap on some make up and coordinate a cute outfit. If you’re willing to walk around in pumps so high you could dunk a basketball, the least he can do is put on a nice shirt. If he’s not trying to impress you too, you’re wasting your time.
(*** T-Notes: Who really goes on 'dates' anymore? And furthermore, where are you going on your night out? Are you going to the local pub for a night of live music? If so that hour you spent 'coordinating an outfit' and those gigantic heels you're going to wear are kind of retarded. Part of being with someone is being okay with how each other looks right after the gym or first thing in the morning after a bender. From experience I could wear a black eyeliner for a night out and a brown one during the day. The response from my guy? "Oh... I can't see it... there's no difference." Besides, if you spend all of your time trying to look fantastic when you are going somewhere nice it won't be anything new. If he looks presentable and comfortable for dates consider yourself lucky! At least you know that he likes you enough and is comfortable enough around you to not look completely out of his element. ***)
3. Never Picks Up On Your Calls Or Only Texts You First of all, texts are the bane of the modern dating experience. If he’s afraid to let you reach out and touch him via technology, i.e. the phone, he’s already avoiding the easiest way to communicate with you. Lame!
(*** T-Notes: This is probably one of the most common misunderstandings. If most of the time he texts you rather than calls you he could genuinely be very busy. Maybe he's in an important business meeting risking termination by texting you while his boss drones on about surpluses... could happen. It's highly unfortunate that the female species is conditioned to think "if he doesn't take my calls he hates me/is cheating on me/thinks I'm psychotic". Although don't get me wrong I'm sure there are people on both sides of the gender fence that could stand to back off in this area. ***)
4. Friends and Family Disapprove Whether the people close to you hate him or the people close to him hate you, it’s bad. After all, how are you going to go places together or worse yet, what’s the point of having a partner if you’re forced to go to things alone due to personality differences? Listen to the people who love you. You’ve already picked them to be in your life, you can find someone else who will slip right in.
(*** T-Notes: Have you made an effort to figure out why his friends/family don't like you? It could simply be that they're afraid you could be a permanent fixture in their lives (which shouldn't be taken personally, it's largely fear on their part). In these situations people should understand that there is always a bigger person. You need to be that bigger person if you want your relationship to work out. You and your partner need to discuss the options you have. Not just "his family hates me so I'm going to dump him"... don't be retarded. Your family and friends, as much as they can be assets, don't have the full view of what it's like from your description alone. And besides, the bigger person would never gang up on their partner with they're friends. ***)
5. He Insists On Something You Don’t Like Whether it’s anal sex or a flea bag restaurant, if it’s not his birthday, he doesn’t always get his way. If he really cared about you and your opinion you would be able to do things you both enjoy. But if he’s consistently choosing to be a selfish jerk, you should too and dump his egocentric butt.
(*** T-Notes: So if he insists on something you don't like he's an egocentric jerk? Didn't you say right from the beginning, "it’s all about understanding and complimenting each other’s strengths and weakness"? So understand this: compromise. 'Nuff said. ... unless it's the Stratty Theater versus Famous Players. That's not even the same sport. ***)
6. You Only Take Bad Pictures Together The camera is a scientific device that never lies. It gives you a close up look at your chemistry, even if it’s a crowd shot. So, if you don’t look good together for some reason, albeit superficial, it’s a warning sign.
(*** T-Notes: The camera is not a scientific device. The fact of the matter is some people are just naturally more photogenic than others. If either of you looks just horrible in pictures that doesn't mean your relationship is doomed to failure. It means you suck at posing for pictures. If you take #6 literally you might as well ask the magic 8-ball if you're going to get married... and don't forget to listen to it... after all, it's magic right? ***)
So that's it. I've wanted to do a post on this kind of thing for while and now I can die happy.
Someone has to stick up for the guys of the world.
I just realized we didn't actually talk about sex... So here it is: Watch yourself sometime.. the faces you make can be hilarious.
*PEACE*
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
So I Beat A Mouse At Go Fish...
Normally I wouldn't actively push a specific political party. I have a very political mind and tend to pick and choose what I like and don't like about the various platforms available to me.
Oddly enough, I heard this 'rumour' through my parents first. Since I've lived with my parents for my entire life I basically expressed a brief outrage and went about my business...
That was until I got an email from the NDP with the subject line: "Help Stop the Text Message Cash-grab".
This made me stop because this was the exact thing my parents had mentioned to me.
I thought I had no money before... but now Wireless Service Providers, Bell and Telus are trying to charge the average cell phone user for RECEIVING text messages as well as sending them. This isn't just text messages from people you know; this is texts from spammers and other unwanted texts.
So if you're like me and you have your cell on MSN and/or Facebook you will have to eliminate those nifty services if you don't want to be charged for them.
What are your thoughts??
You can sign the petition on the NDP webpage here.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Because Bitches Be Crazy...
I haven't posted in awhile. I've been making the transition to shift work and it kinda sucks not having a whole lot of time to do fuck all. Even when I work the day shift I get off at 3pm and think "sweet! now I have 5.5 whole hours before I have to go to sleep again! W00T!".
Seriously though, even though I haven't posted in awhile there are other people who are rather reliable for these sort of things. In this particular scenario it's our friend Binks providing dulcet commentary on the really stupid crap that goes on in our work on a daily basis. A particular post came to mind (actually the first of his posts I ever commented on) when I was catching up on one of my favourite YouTube vlogs, The Philip DeFranco Show (episodes of said show can be found to the side under the cleverly titled heading "ThisTube: Broadcast Stuff".
The post I'm referring to chronicles the most recent happenings in the Lori Drew file:
Essentially, Lori Drew's daughter had a rocky friendship with a neighbour girl named Megan Meier; both girls were 14 years old at the time. Drew's daughter and Megan had had a verbal altercation and Drew's daughter told her mother that Megan was saying really horrible things about her to anyone who would listen.
Now here's the kicker:
Rather than act like a mature and responsible adult and simply pick up the phone and speak with Megan's parents about the matter, she chose to respond the way a typical pre-adolescent would respond.
She created a fake MySpace account and posed as boy named Josh Evans. "Josh" treated Megan with respect and dignity for awhile in an effort to gain Megan's trust (Drew claimed it was because she wanted to see for herself if Megan was truly saying mean things about her daughter). So Megan and Josh began "dating", but after awhile Josh's attitude toward Megan changed and he began saying really horrible things to her and telling her that he no longer wanted anything to do with her because she is mean to her friends. This internet bullying continued under Megan Meier committed suicide by hanging.
I totally agree with her parents in this situation. Lori Drew conspired with her daughter and woman who worked for her in an effort to make Megan feel terrible and contributed to this girls eventual suicide. Megan suffered from depression and ADD which has been the primary argument explaining Megan's extreme behaviour.
I don't think Megan's mental condition is an excuse. The fact of the matter is that a grown woman acted horrendously immaturely and contributed to the death of a young innocent girl. Whether Megan had or had not been saying mean things about her daughter is irrelevant at this point because that is what young teenage girls do.
Girls between the ages of 13-16 will go behind your back and systematically destroy every relationship you've ever had if given a reason regardless of how ridiculous. This is where the parents are supposed to step in and get involved in their children's lives and say "look guys, I understand that you've been having some problems with each other but you have to understand that the reason you're angry at each other is not that big and isn't worth risking your friendship" then everybody hugs and makes up and thats the end until boys enter the picture and it starts all over.
Lori Drew's actions make me sick. She acted like a 13 year old herself! She's supposed to be the role model for her daughter!? Christ...
And get this... when Mr. Meier (Megan's Father) approached Drew for some answers he became so distraught at her confession that he broke her pool table and she tried to sue for damages... I don't think anything further needs to be said about that one.
Recently, this story has taken a turn.
There is no law anywhere against bullying someone on the internet even if it leads to a suicide or other harmful act to oneself or others. So instead, Lori Drew has been indicted (not the same as convicted) for using MySpace fraudulently in an effort to harm or harass others. "Drew and her co-conspirators violated MySpace's terms of service, which require registrants to provide truthful registration information and refrain from soliciting personal information from anyone under 18 or using information obtained from MySpace services to harass or harm other people, among other terms."
Megan Meier will never see the light of day again or really get justice for her death because it was by her own hands that she died, even in spite of the fact that the horrible things said to her and posted over the internet for all to see likely contributed to this tragedy.
This interpretation of U.S. law prohibits the creation of any online account under a name that is other than that of the creator/user. This could set a very scary precedent and will likely spread to Canada in short order. Many people will by affected by this law because many create accounts under aliases for legitimate purposes.
The solution as I see it is to not sign yourself or another person up for anything that could come back to bite you in the ass (a.k.a. if you would be ashamed of your grandmother/potential employer seeing it, or you would look down on your child doing/saying it than don't do it yourself... it's a common sense/practice what you preach thing)
But that's it... a bit of a piss off when you think about it...
*Peace*
Seriously though, even though I haven't posted in awhile there are other people who are rather reliable for these sort of things. In this particular scenario it's our friend Binks providing dulcet commentary on the really stupid crap that goes on in our work on a daily basis. A particular post came to mind (actually the first of his posts I ever commented on) when I was catching up on one of my favourite YouTube vlogs, The Philip DeFranco Show (episodes of said show can be found to the side under the cleverly titled heading "ThisTube: Broadcast Stuff".
The post I'm referring to chronicles the most recent happenings in the Lori Drew file:
Essentially, Lori Drew's daughter had a rocky friendship with a neighbour girl named Megan Meier; both girls were 14 years old at the time. Drew's daughter and Megan had had a verbal altercation and Drew's daughter told her mother that Megan was saying really horrible things about her to anyone who would listen.
Now here's the kicker:
Rather than act like a mature and responsible adult and simply pick up the phone and speak with Megan's parents about the matter, she chose to respond the way a typical pre-adolescent would respond.
She created a fake MySpace account and posed as boy named Josh Evans. "Josh" treated Megan with respect and dignity for awhile in an effort to gain Megan's trust (Drew claimed it was because she wanted to see for herself if Megan was truly saying mean things about her daughter). So Megan and Josh began "dating", but after awhile Josh's attitude toward Megan changed and he began saying really horrible things to her and telling her that he no longer wanted anything to do with her because she is mean to her friends. This internet bullying continued under Megan Meier committed suicide by hanging.
I totally agree with her parents in this situation. Lori Drew conspired with her daughter and woman who worked for her in an effort to make Megan feel terrible and contributed to this girls eventual suicide. Megan suffered from depression and ADD which has been the primary argument explaining Megan's extreme behaviour.
I don't think Megan's mental condition is an excuse. The fact of the matter is that a grown woman acted horrendously immaturely and contributed to the death of a young innocent girl. Whether Megan had or had not been saying mean things about her daughter is irrelevant at this point because that is what young teenage girls do.
Girls between the ages of 13-16 will go behind your back and systematically destroy every relationship you've ever had if given a reason regardless of how ridiculous. This is where the parents are supposed to step in and get involved in their children's lives and say "look guys, I understand that you've been having some problems with each other but you have to understand that the reason you're angry at each other is not that big and isn't worth risking your friendship" then everybody hugs and makes up and thats the end until boys enter the picture and it starts all over.
Lori Drew's actions make me sick. She acted like a 13 year old herself! She's supposed to be the role model for her daughter!? Christ...
And get this... when Mr. Meier (Megan's Father) approached Drew for some answers he became so distraught at her confession that he broke her pool table and she tried to sue for damages... I don't think anything further needs to be said about that one.
Recently, this story has taken a turn.
There is no law anywhere against bullying someone on the internet even if it leads to a suicide or other harmful act to oneself or others. So instead, Lori Drew has been indicted (not the same as convicted) for using MySpace fraudulently in an effort to harm or harass others. "Drew and her co-conspirators violated MySpace's terms of service, which require registrants to provide truthful registration information and refrain from soliciting personal information from anyone under 18 or using information obtained from MySpace services to harass or harm other people, among other terms."
Megan Meier will never see the light of day again or really get justice for her death because it was by her own hands that she died, even in spite of the fact that the horrible things said to her and posted over the internet for all to see likely contributed to this tragedy.
This interpretation of U.S. law prohibits the creation of any online account under a name that is other than that of the creator/user. This could set a very scary precedent and will likely spread to Canada in short order. Many people will by affected by this law because many create accounts under aliases for legitimate purposes.
The solution as I see it is to not sign yourself or another person up for anything that could come back to bite you in the ass (a.k.a. if you would be ashamed of your grandmother/potential employer seeing it, or you would look down on your child doing/saying it than don't do it yourself... it's a common sense/practice what you preach thing)
But that's it... a bit of a piss off when you think about it...
*Peace*
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Seriously.. Who Throws A Shoe?!
You can all rest easy now. The Blogroll is back up.
And in keeping with never stopping when you're on a 'state-the-obvious' streak, I am now back in Stratford for the summer. I have mixed feelings about this. I'm not a fan of the moving process nor am I big on the thought of being stuck here all summer but I keep telling myself, "it's only 4 months, it's only 4 months...".
Of course being back in Stratford isn't going to stop me from telling another fantastic Waterloo story. This one also takes place at work and is almost too ridiculous.
So it was my last day on the job for the summer and I had to work the Sunday 11am-730pm shift. I wasn't thrilled about it and I became even more unimpressed when I showed up that day and was told that I would be working the breakfast/lunch shift with a girl nobody can stand (for the sake of anonymity we'll call her 'pushy bitch').
I have had words with this girl on a few separate occasions and always about the same issue. Pushy Bitch likes to think that even though she's only worked there for 5 months that she can can do every job better than all the other employees combined. I have taken her aside and said "look. I know you're trying to help out but you really need to back off and do your own work". She gets worked up over really retarded things and is ALWAYS eating something. I don't think I have ever looked over and seen her without food in her hand. Her superiority complex really pisses me off whenever I have to deal with her.
So I was told I'd have to work the omelette station with her for about 4 hours of my shift and I wasn't happy but I figured it would probably be busy and I wouldn't have to worry about her. About an hour into the shift I'm standing over on my side mumbling about shitty frying pans (my boss is convinced that HomeSense frying pans from the housewares department at Zellers are just as effective and provide the same longevity as restaurant quality cookware. The pans we currently have are maybe 2 months old and the non-stick coating is already coming off resulting in us having to clean burnt egg off the bottom of them every other order. Since it's a busy station it becomes a pain in the ass after awhile).
I'm doing my job, cursing the pans under my breath and minding my own business when Pushy Bitch comes over and says 'let me do it' and tries to step in front of me and take over my job. Meanwhile, she is cooking nothing on her side and we have at least 20 people waiting in line. Then I reacted. I put my hand out and moved her back to her side.
That was when she tweaked...
PB: YOU PUSHED ME!!
Me: No I didn't, I moved you back to your own side
PB: No! You pushed me! It's the same thing!
Me: No it's not, they have varying degrees of force. Not the same thing.
At this point she disappears briefly and I knowingly assume that she has gone to the boss to tell him about our confrontation.
Only moments later I'm summoned to the depths of the boss-mans lair with my supervisor to explain the situation. I'm pretty pissed at this point.
Boss-man: Tell me what happened.
Me: She tried to take over my station and I reacted, I didn't hurt her.
Boss-man: She tells me that you attacked her, and I shouldn't have to tell you that you never lay a hand on anyone around here. You should know that that kind of behavior is grounds for immediate termination.
Me: I understand. However, I would like to clarify that had she stayed on her own side none of this would have happened. She is blowing this way out of proportion and that isn't how it happened.
*I explain what happened while inserting evidence from events leading up to this incident*
Boss-man: Well you're a smart girl so I'm going to give you a verbal warning and hopefully she'll be content with that and won't want to file a written complaint.
After I heard that I almost wanted to laugh. It wasn't bad enough that this girl is only a year younger than me and 'ran to mom' when she was pissed that someone finally put her in her place but now she was being given the option to send me before the all dreaded food services tribunal? I've never felt so 'reality TV' in my life.
I made up my mind at that point that if I was going to be called to defend myself in an effort to save my part-time job that I was going to quit. I have never lashed out at anyone, ever, physically in anger. This incident was no exception. I define a 'push' (in this context #15) as being moved with enough physical force by another animate being that you either stumble or end up on your ass. However, I also apparently attacked her which was an accusation made ex parte. I define an attack as a physical or verbal assault that causes injury.
This girl did not stumble and I did not use any force against her causing her injury. Therefore I find this whole thing to be childish and a rape of my intelligence. (Speaking of childish I would also like to mention that for the rest of our shift together every time we had to pass each other she would flinch or move cautiously around me as though I was going to lunge at her with something sharp or life altering).
Up until this point I have not heard anything related to tribunals or termination so I'm assuming that it's over.
I'm not sure if they can fire me months after the fact, although it might be something worth looking into in the event they think they'll try to be clever.
She ranks a close second to the other completely-upset-about-the-way-her-life-turned-out-so-she-takes-it-out-on-her-employees person I've ever worked with/for.
Irony sucks.
That is all...
And in keeping with never stopping when you're on a 'state-the-obvious' streak, I am now back in Stratford for the summer. I have mixed feelings about this. I'm not a fan of the moving process nor am I big on the thought of being stuck here all summer but I keep telling myself, "it's only 4 months, it's only 4 months...".
Of course being back in Stratford isn't going to stop me from telling another fantastic Waterloo story. This one also takes place at work and is almost too ridiculous.
So it was my last day on the job for the summer and I had to work the Sunday 11am-730pm shift. I wasn't thrilled about it and I became even more unimpressed when I showed up that day and was told that I would be working the breakfast/lunch shift with a girl nobody can stand (for the sake of anonymity we'll call her 'pushy bitch').
I have had words with this girl on a few separate occasions and always about the same issue. Pushy Bitch likes to think that even though she's only worked there for 5 months that she can can do every job better than all the other employees combined. I have taken her aside and said "look. I know you're trying to help out but you really need to back off and do your own work". She gets worked up over really retarded things and is ALWAYS eating something. I don't think I have ever looked over and seen her without food in her hand. Her superiority complex really pisses me off whenever I have to deal with her.
So I was told I'd have to work the omelette station with her for about 4 hours of my shift and I wasn't happy but I figured it would probably be busy and I wouldn't have to worry about her. About an hour into the shift I'm standing over on my side mumbling about shitty frying pans (my boss is convinced that HomeSense frying pans from the housewares department at Zellers are just as effective and provide the same longevity as restaurant quality cookware. The pans we currently have are maybe 2 months old and the non-stick coating is already coming off resulting in us having to clean burnt egg off the bottom of them every other order. Since it's a busy station it becomes a pain in the ass after awhile).
I'm doing my job, cursing the pans under my breath and minding my own business when Pushy Bitch comes over and says 'let me do it' and tries to step in front of me and take over my job. Meanwhile, she is cooking nothing on her side and we have at least 20 people waiting in line. Then I reacted. I put my hand out and moved her back to her side.
That was when she tweaked...
PB: YOU PUSHED ME!!
Me: No I didn't, I moved you back to your own side
PB: No! You pushed me! It's the same thing!
Me: No it's not, they have varying degrees of force. Not the same thing.
At this point she disappears briefly and I knowingly assume that she has gone to the boss to tell him about our confrontation.
Only moments later I'm summoned to the depths of the boss-mans lair with my supervisor to explain the situation. I'm pretty pissed at this point.
Boss-man: Tell me what happened.
Me: She tried to take over my station and I reacted, I didn't hurt her.
Boss-man: She tells me that you attacked her, and I shouldn't have to tell you that you never lay a hand on anyone around here. You should know that that kind of behavior is grounds for immediate termination.
Me: I understand. However, I would like to clarify that had she stayed on her own side none of this would have happened. She is blowing this way out of proportion and that isn't how it happened.
*I explain what happened while inserting evidence from events leading up to this incident*
Boss-man: Well you're a smart girl so I'm going to give you a verbal warning and hopefully she'll be content with that and won't want to file a written complaint.
After I heard that I almost wanted to laugh. It wasn't bad enough that this girl is only a year younger than me and 'ran to mom' when she was pissed that someone finally put her in her place but now she was being given the option to send me before the all dreaded food services tribunal? I've never felt so 'reality TV' in my life.
I made up my mind at that point that if I was going to be called to defend myself in an effort to save my part-time job that I was going to quit. I have never lashed out at anyone, ever, physically in anger. This incident was no exception. I define a 'push' (in this context #15) as being moved with enough physical force by another animate being that you either stumble or end up on your ass. However, I also apparently attacked her which was an accusation made ex parte. I define an attack as a physical or verbal assault that causes injury.
This girl did not stumble and I did not use any force against her causing her injury. Therefore I find this whole thing to be childish and a rape of my intelligence. (Speaking of childish I would also like to mention that for the rest of our shift together every time we had to pass each other she would flinch or move cautiously around me as though I was going to lunge at her with something sharp or life altering).
Up until this point I have not heard anything related to tribunals or termination so I'm assuming that it's over.
I'm not sure if they can fire me months after the fact, although it might be something worth looking into in the event they think they'll try to be clever.
She ranks a close second to the other completely-upset-about-the-way-her-life-turned-out-so-she-takes-it-out-on-her-employees person I've ever worked with/for.
Irony sucks.
That is all...
Saturday, April 12, 2008
That Bottle in Flavour Country
Lately things at work have been rather on edge. There was a huge fiasco where many university and college students balancing studies and work chose to quit rather than risk being fired when they were told they couldn't book the exam period off. Luckily I was well ahead of things; when I found out my exam dates I immediately emailed them to my boss and now tomorrow is my last day for the summer. That's not too say that I agree with these new policies. I find them a little enraging. The high school students who work with me got their exam week at the end of January off of work, and quite a few of them were allowed to book off their March Break to go on various excursions (of the ones I'm aware of one girl went to Cuba and another went to Quebec). What I take issue with is that the administration seems to put university students on the same wave length as the high schoolers. Last I checked you don't have to shell out a couple grand for every semester that you attend a secondary institution.
On top of a lot of the students quitting, we're also losing 3 girls in quick succession to maternity leave so many of us who have stayed have been picking up the slack while these women gear up to take a year off. Now don't get me wrong, under no circumstances am I suggesting that pregnant women don't have the right to work, nor am I suggesting that maternity leave should be abolished, I want to make that perfectly clear. The issue that irks me is that these girls seem to be outwardly using their pregnancy as a "disability". Many expectant young mothers that I have come into contact with in recent months have been deplorable at best. Granted I have never been pregnant, nor do I plan to get pregnant for many years but part of me still thinks that if you're going to willfully put yourself into the situation where you're going to share your body with a small parasite-esque creature, you'd think you'd also be capable of doing your job if you choose to work whilst sharing your body.
From the various infected women I've spoken to throughout my lifetime I can understand that you are limited in some ways. You can lift heavy things, sometimes things that never bothered before make you vomit in your mouth a little, you can't ride horses or jump on trampolines... yeah I get all that stuff. It seems like a lot of these women are just picking and choosing from the list of things they should and should not do whilst pregnant. Like smoking... damn... it pisses me off to see women who say things like "oh I can't set up for the day shift tomorrow morning because my doctor told me that I, like, can't lift heavy stuff" or "I can't clean that because my doctor said that eco-friendly cleaning products are bad for the baby"... yeah... if you drink them...
These are the same women who turn around and say "oh look at the time I haven't had a cigarette in about 47 seconds... if the boss asks tell them I'm in the bathroom". It's this type of hypocritical asshole that I want to grab and smack the crap out of. Has anyone else noticed that DINK families (double income no kids) have the hardest time conceiving, the parents that want a baby of their own to love and care for are completely sterile but Joe Blow who lives in the shack down by the old town bridge had 14 that have various medical problems and he can't care for them? Where is the cosmic and all benevolent justice in that?
Now this might seem a bit radical but I'm convinced that in spite of the fact that western countries have underpopulation issues that people should be required to pass a course and an exam to determine whether or not they are capable of raising a child. They should be tested on their ability to nurture, discipline and provide for their children but also be made to take an oath stating that they won't do all of the stupid things irresponsible young mothers do their fetuses. I'm sure that it would take one hell of a strain off of the health care system if we didn't have all of these babies bringing their asthma and fetal alcohol syndrome babies into the hospital wanting help because they weren't able to stay out of the bottom of that bottle in flavour country for 3/4 of a year.
That's it...
*peace*
On top of a lot of the students quitting, we're also losing 3 girls in quick succession to maternity leave so many of us who have stayed have been picking up the slack while these women gear up to take a year off. Now don't get me wrong, under no circumstances am I suggesting that pregnant women don't have the right to work, nor am I suggesting that maternity leave should be abolished, I want to make that perfectly clear. The issue that irks me is that these girls seem to be outwardly using their pregnancy as a "disability". Many expectant young mothers that I have come into contact with in recent months have been deplorable at best. Granted I have never been pregnant, nor do I plan to get pregnant for many years but part of me still thinks that if you're going to willfully put yourself into the situation where you're going to share your body with a small parasite-esque creature, you'd think you'd also be capable of doing your job if you choose to work whilst sharing your body.
From the various infected women I've spoken to throughout my lifetime I can understand that you are limited in some ways. You can lift heavy things, sometimes things that never bothered before make you vomit in your mouth a little, you can't ride horses or jump on trampolines... yeah I get all that stuff. It seems like a lot of these women are just picking and choosing from the list of things they should and should not do whilst pregnant. Like smoking... damn... it pisses me off to see women who say things like "oh I can't set up for the day shift tomorrow morning because my doctor told me that I, like, can't lift heavy stuff" or "I can't clean that because my doctor said that eco-friendly cleaning products are bad for the baby"... yeah... if you drink them...
These are the same women who turn around and say "oh look at the time I haven't had a cigarette in about 47 seconds... if the boss asks tell them I'm in the bathroom". It's this type of hypocritical asshole that I want to grab and smack the crap out of. Has anyone else noticed that DINK families (double income no kids) have the hardest time conceiving, the parents that want a baby of their own to love and care for are completely sterile but Joe Blow who lives in the shack down by the old town bridge had 14 that have various medical problems and he can't care for them? Where is the cosmic and all benevolent justice in that?
Now this might seem a bit radical but I'm convinced that in spite of the fact that western countries have underpopulation issues that people should be required to pass a course and an exam to determine whether or not they are capable of raising a child. They should be tested on their ability to nurture, discipline and provide for their children but also be made to take an oath stating that they won't do all of the stupid things irresponsible young mothers do their fetuses. I'm sure that it would take one hell of a strain off of the health care system if we didn't have all of these babies bringing their asthma and fetal alcohol syndrome babies into the hospital wanting help because they weren't able to stay out of the bottom of that bottle in flavour country for 3/4 of a year.
That's it...
*peace*
Friday, March 21, 2008
Coinsidence?
I just wanted to point out something.... does anyone else think this is indisputable evidence that Britney Spear's oldest son is going to be a serial killer?
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Segregation-Wha!?
I was watching the news today. As a student in political science I should probably watch it more but I always find something more amusing.
Today however, I watched a short clip about a parents group and school boards in Toronto who are toying with the idea of building a school for none other than the black student body.
You must be thinking, "you can't be serious, you must have heard it wrong", but no. I'm very serious and rather unnerved by this event.
Does it seem to anyone else that sending black students to a separate school would only send our society 500 years backward? The groups in favour of this cited that 40% of black students do not graduate from a secondary institution. Do they really think that this is because they go to school with other races?
The town where I grew up is notorious for high school dropouts, teen pregnancies, drugs, vandalism and... dare I say it? DRINKING UNDER AGE *gasp!*. This isn't really a place where you'd expect to walk down the street and get mugged or anything insane and for the most part it's a peaceful place to live. However, many of these kids get caught up in less than acceptable behaviours because they don't have anything else to do. (Those of us who got out and didn't get caught up are the lucky ones... we know who we are).
Social programs people! After school programs. We don't even have to call them programs. I'm sure cities like Toronto have marketing people who can come up with a clever "cool kids stay in school"-esque campaign.
Also cited in this report were other 'special' schools for gay and lesbian teens. Personally, I don't think building a school specifically for black students even comes close to the rationale for building a school for gay and lesbian teens.
In Canada, we may put forward an image of being all accepting and nonjudgmental, but it's not true. Our Prime Minister hates that homosexual couples now have the same right to marriage as heterosexuals and that's just sick. Society is still hostile toward anyone not perceived as 'normal' (I dislike when that word gets thrown around... 'normal' is extremely relative) and high school can be one of the most dangerous places for a teen who is either confused or confirmed homosexual or bisexual.
These kids get tormented for being who they are and it's wrong but there isn't much we can do about it. Although there are many of us that are very supportive we are still an unfortunate minority.
The other cited example of 'special' schooling in this broadcast was about schools for aboriginal peoples. One word: Assimilation. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? Basically it's when we took the aboriginal children, gave them "white" names and tried to teach them to be "white". Not to mention that aboriginals in Canada are the most impoverished group in Canada. When mercury was poisoning the people living on the reserve in Northern Canada a couple years ago, the federal government said "it's the provincial governments jurisdiction because Aboriginals are their responsibility". Meanwhile the provincial government was saying "it's the federal governments jurisdiction because water is their responsibility".
I felt like the only person screaming "HELLO?! PEOPLE ARE DYING!!".
Neither of the examples the pro-segregation groups cited really apply to their cause if you think about it. Maybe they figured that out toward the end when they said that if they can't have their own school then they there should be a part of the curriculum dedicated to black history.
I also have a problem with this. I have had a problem with black history month before. It's not because I have a problem with black people, nothing like that. I just think it's unfair to give one group special treatment just because we're either a) afraid of them or b) they were mistreated in the past.
Slavery was an issue quite a while ago. I get that it hurt a lot of people and a lot of families but at the same time, the slaves that were released wanted to strive for a lifestyle equivalent (or close) to their 'masters'. So doesn't black history month in it's own way segregate black people from other races? If there is a black history month, why can't there be a white history month? It would be more about colonial powers, imperialism, the introduction of the slave trade and the scramble for Africa than about overcoming adversity and defying the odds (people don't want to be told about themselves unless they are good things). But there will never be a white history month. Can anyone guess why? Because it's viewed as racist. It displeases me that being a certain colour (regardless of what it is) either makes you lower than the rest of society or makes you a racist.
It's kind of like 'Islam Awareness Week', which will be taking place in the Great Hall of the SLC this week. Why do they get a week? Why not Atheism Awareness Week, Buddhism Awareness Week, Christian Awareness Week, etc.?
I'm not sure how true this is, but I was told by someone enrolled at UW in 2002 that it was that year that they started IAW. I can see some logic behind it (trying to show that not all Muslims are extremists), however, it seems that a lot of the treatment (and by treatment I don't mean the violent treatment) of Muslims post 9/11 was instituted out of fear.
Why do we insist on acting as though one group is superior to another? It's not true. I've met some brilliant people from a variety of races as well as a variety of not so brilliant. In the end we're all people... why purposefully segregate ourselves?
Today however, I watched a short clip about a parents group and school boards in Toronto who are toying with the idea of building a school for none other than the black student body.
You must be thinking, "you can't be serious, you must have heard it wrong", but no. I'm very serious and rather unnerved by this event.
Does it seem to anyone else that sending black students to a separate school would only send our society 500 years backward? The groups in favour of this cited that 40% of black students do not graduate from a secondary institution. Do they really think that this is because they go to school with other races?
The town where I grew up is notorious for high school dropouts, teen pregnancies, drugs, vandalism and... dare I say it? DRINKING UNDER AGE *gasp!*. This isn't really a place where you'd expect to walk down the street and get mugged or anything insane and for the most part it's a peaceful place to live. However, many of these kids get caught up in less than acceptable behaviours because they don't have anything else to do. (Those of us who got out and didn't get caught up are the lucky ones... we know who we are).
Social programs people! After school programs. We don't even have to call them programs. I'm sure cities like Toronto have marketing people who can come up with a clever "cool kids stay in school"-esque campaign.
Also cited in this report were other 'special' schools for gay and lesbian teens. Personally, I don't think building a school specifically for black students even comes close to the rationale for building a school for gay and lesbian teens.
In Canada, we may put forward an image of being all accepting and nonjudgmental, but it's not true. Our Prime Minister hates that homosexual couples now have the same right to marriage as heterosexuals and that's just sick. Society is still hostile toward anyone not perceived as 'normal' (I dislike when that word gets thrown around... 'normal' is extremely relative) and high school can be one of the most dangerous places for a teen who is either confused or confirmed homosexual or bisexual.
These kids get tormented for being who they are and it's wrong but there isn't much we can do about it. Although there are many of us that are very supportive we are still an unfortunate minority.
The other cited example of 'special' schooling in this broadcast was about schools for aboriginal peoples. One word: Assimilation. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? Basically it's when we took the aboriginal children, gave them "white" names and tried to teach them to be "white". Not to mention that aboriginals in Canada are the most impoverished group in Canada. When mercury was poisoning the people living on the reserve in Northern Canada a couple years ago, the federal government said "it's the provincial governments jurisdiction because Aboriginals are their responsibility". Meanwhile the provincial government was saying "it's the federal governments jurisdiction because water is their responsibility".
I felt like the only person screaming "HELLO?! PEOPLE ARE DYING!!".
Neither of the examples the pro-segregation groups cited really apply to their cause if you think about it. Maybe they figured that out toward the end when they said that if they can't have their own school then they there should be a part of the curriculum dedicated to black history.
I also have a problem with this. I have had a problem with black history month before. It's not because I have a problem with black people, nothing like that. I just think it's unfair to give one group special treatment just because we're either a) afraid of them or b) they were mistreated in the past.
Slavery was an issue quite a while ago. I get that it hurt a lot of people and a lot of families but at the same time, the slaves that were released wanted to strive for a lifestyle equivalent (or close) to their 'masters'. So doesn't black history month in it's own way segregate black people from other races? If there is a black history month, why can't there be a white history month? It would be more about colonial powers, imperialism, the introduction of the slave trade and the scramble for Africa than about overcoming adversity and defying the odds (people don't want to be told about themselves unless they are good things). But there will never be a white history month. Can anyone guess why? Because it's viewed as racist. It displeases me that being a certain colour (regardless of what it is) either makes you lower than the rest of society or makes you a racist.
It's kind of like 'Islam Awareness Week', which will be taking place in the Great Hall of the SLC this week. Why do they get a week? Why not Atheism Awareness Week, Buddhism Awareness Week, Christian Awareness Week, etc.?
I'm not sure how true this is, but I was told by someone enrolled at UW in 2002 that it was that year that they started IAW. I can see some logic behind it (trying to show that not all Muslims are extremists), however, it seems that a lot of the treatment (and by treatment I don't mean the violent treatment) of Muslims post 9/11 was instituted out of fear.
Why do we insist on acting as though one group is superior to another? It's not true. I've met some brilliant people from a variety of races as well as a variety of not so brilliant. In the end we're all people... why purposefully segregate ourselves?
Sunday, January 13, 2008
>insert snappy victory march here<
Hello Loyal Readers,
I haven't made a post since well before the Xmas holidays I believe. That is primarily for 2 reasons:
1) I haven't had the time
and
2) I haven't had anything worth writing about
I suppose the first leads into the second, I don't really think anyone wants to read about "my trip to where ever" unless hilarity ensued (because I know I wouldn't).
Those things have been completely true until recently when my father sent me a forward that were comments written by Bruce Allen. If you don't know who Bruce Allen is, he is a music producer out of Vancouver BC who made comments considered largely politically incorrect. Long and short, "immigrants should have to adapt to Canadian culture, not the other way around".
The Email:
Everyone,
I'm sending this because there has been a request that the national anthem should be sung in different languages for those new Canadians because it is sung only in English or French.
Bruce Allan is on the 2010 Olympic Committee and new Canadians want him fired for his recent comments. It's time we all get behind Bruce Allen, and scrap this Political Correctness crap.
His comments were anything but racist, but there are far too many
overly-sensitive 'New Canadians' that are trying to change everything we hold dear.
Subject: Our National Anthem
I am sorry, but after hearing they want to sing the National Anthem in
Hindi - enough is enough.
No where or at no other time in our nation's history, did they sing it in Italian, Japanese, Polish, Irish (Celtic), German, Portuguese, Greek, or any other language because of immigration. It was written in English, adapted into co-founding French and should be sung word for word the way it was written.
The news broadcasts even gave the translation -- not even close. I am not sorry if this offends anyone, this is MY COUNTRY - IF IT IS YOUR COUNTRY SPEAK UP!
I am not against immigration -- just come through like everyone else.
Get a sponsor; have a place to lay your head; have a job; pay your taxes, live by the rules AND LEARN THE LANGUAGE as all other immigrants have in the past -- and LONG LIVE CANADA!
PART OF THE PROBLEM:
Think about this: If you don't want to forward this for fear of offending someone...
YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM !!!!
Will we still be the Country of Choice and still be CANADA if we continue
to make the changes forced on us by the people from other countries, who have come to live in CANADA because it is the Country of Choice??????
Think about it! IMMIGRANTS, NOT CANADIANS, MUST ADAPT.
It is Time for CANADA to Speak up.
Decide whether or not you agree...
This story is going back to last year and I recently received a follow up to his comments saying that Liberal MP Richard Chan filed a complaint about these comments back in September of 2007.
Reply:
VANCOUVER/CKNW(AM980) - Despite being given a show of support by Vancouver 2010 organizers, embattled music manager and CKNW editorialist, Bruce Allen is not out of hot water just yet as the fallout continues from his recent commentary indicating immigrants to Canada
should "fit in," or "go home."
Richmond Liberal MP, Raymond Chan, is set to file an official complaint with the CRTC (Cdn Radio Television Commission) about Allen's recent "reality check" alleging the piece was discriminatory. Chan is also demanding an official apology and a retraction of the comments.
I am in no way a racist. I don't look down on people because they have a different culture, different traditions or different beliefs from myself, nor do I judge people based on the colour of their skin. I approach life with the attitude that if a person is going to treat me decently I'll treat them decently in return. The only time I will treat a person poorly is if they have given me just cause. I guess I'm what you would call indifferent.
Now that that is out of the way I'd like to say that in some ways I agree with what Bruce Allen is saying. This country has been both the land of opportunity (sorry USA) and the land of misery for many people but when I travel I try with every ounce of power inside me to respect the language and culture of the country I am in.
Four years ago I traveled to London, Paris and Barcelona with a club from my high school. While we were in the countries where very little English was spoken I did my best to try and speak their language first even though I was very bad at it. I found that they treated me a lot better than some of my other travel companions who expected them to adapt to our language in their country. Even I was unimpressed.
I have had many good and a few insulting experiences during my short time at Waterloo. There are groups and clubs on campus that cater to almost every major ethnic group on campus as well as 14 groups that are religion based. Conversely, 1 group that generalizes what it means to not believe in a god or organized religion.
I think the worst one was when I was told by an international student that as a woman it was my job to make him a sandwich (this occurred while I was at work). This was the most insulting thing I think I have ever had said to me and it takes quite a bit to offend me.
Another thing that bothers me, and this will probably show a little bias, is the amount of hatred and disdain shown for GLOW and other members of the gay community on campus. I am proud to be part of the Ally Network for GLOW even though I identify as heterosexual. The things that happen on this campus by people who don't even have the guts to say it (such as during 'coming out week' this passed September when someone ripped the flag that was hanging in the SLC down and threw it in the garbage). It was a flag. It wasn't hurting anyone.
Some might say that the flag was offending them so they felt compelled to tear it down. I think it's offensive that people treat LGBTQ people like they have a disease.
So with the Bruce Allen controversy, to some degree I feel as though the culture in Canada has been gradually disappearing. For example, for many years now children in public school can't do Christmas plays or sing Christmas songs. They're called 'Holiday' songs so we don't offend other religions.
I think everyone is entitled to what they think, but saying it out loud and changing my lifestyle and the lifestyle of my future children to suit you because you're the new person is a different issue.
I think we've made many sacrifices to our lifestyles to suit new immigrants so this sense of superiority needs to stop.
See you next time...
*Peace*
I haven't made a post since well before the Xmas holidays I believe. That is primarily for 2 reasons:
1) I haven't had the time
and
2) I haven't had anything worth writing about
I suppose the first leads into the second, I don't really think anyone wants to read about "my trip to where ever" unless hilarity ensued (because I know I wouldn't).
Those things have been completely true until recently when my father sent me a forward that were comments written by Bruce Allen. If you don't know who Bruce Allen is, he is a music producer out of Vancouver BC who made comments considered largely politically incorrect. Long and short, "immigrants should have to adapt to Canadian culture, not the other way around".
The Email:
Everyone,
I'm sending this because there has been a request that the national anthem should be sung in different languages for those new Canadians because it is sung only in English or French.
Bruce Allan is on the 2010 Olympic Committee and new Canadians want him fired for his recent comments. It's time we all get behind Bruce Allen, and scrap this Political Correctness crap.
His comments were anything but racist, but there are far too many
overly-sensitive 'New Canadians' that are trying to change everything we hold dear.
Subject: Our National Anthem
I am sorry, but after hearing they want to sing the National Anthem in
Hindi - enough is enough.
No where or at no other time in our nation's history, did they sing it in Italian, Japanese, Polish, Irish (Celtic), German, Portuguese, Greek, or any other language because of immigration. It was written in English, adapted into co-founding French and should be sung word for word the way it was written.
The news broadcasts even gave the translation -- not even close. I am not sorry if this offends anyone, this is MY COUNTRY - IF IT IS YOUR COUNTRY SPEAK UP!
I am not against immigration -- just come through like everyone else.
Get a sponsor; have a place to lay your head; have a job; pay your taxes, live by the rules AND LEARN THE LANGUAGE as all other immigrants have in the past -- and LONG LIVE CANADA!
PART OF THE PROBLEM:
Think about this: If you don't want to forward this for fear of offending someone...
YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM !!!!
Will we still be the Country of Choice and still be CANADA if we continue
to make the changes forced on us by the people from other countries, who have come to live in CANADA because it is the Country of Choice??????
Think about it! IMMIGRANTS, NOT CANADIANS, MUST ADAPT.
It is Time for CANADA to Speak up.
Decide whether or not you agree...
This story is going back to last year and I recently received a follow up to his comments saying that Liberal MP Richard Chan filed a complaint about these comments back in September of 2007.
Reply:
VANCOUVER/CKNW(AM980) - Despite being given a show of support by Vancouver 2010 organizers, embattled music manager and CKNW editorialist, Bruce Allen is not out of hot water just yet as the fallout continues from his recent commentary indicating immigrants to Canada
should "fit in," or "go home."
Richmond Liberal MP, Raymond Chan, is set to file an official complaint with the CRTC (Cdn Radio Television Commission) about Allen's recent "reality check" alleging the piece was discriminatory. Chan is also demanding an official apology and a retraction of the comments.
I am in no way a racist. I don't look down on people because they have a different culture, different traditions or different beliefs from myself, nor do I judge people based on the colour of their skin. I approach life with the attitude that if a person is going to treat me decently I'll treat them decently in return. The only time I will treat a person poorly is if they have given me just cause. I guess I'm what you would call indifferent.
Now that that is out of the way I'd like to say that in some ways I agree with what Bruce Allen is saying. This country has been both the land of opportunity (sorry USA) and the land of misery for many people but when I travel I try with every ounce of power inside me to respect the language and culture of the country I am in.
Four years ago I traveled to London, Paris and Barcelona with a club from my high school. While we were in the countries where very little English was spoken I did my best to try and speak their language first even though I was very bad at it. I found that they treated me a lot better than some of my other travel companions who expected them to adapt to our language in their country. Even I was unimpressed.
I have had many good and a few insulting experiences during my short time at Waterloo. There are groups and clubs on campus that cater to almost every major ethnic group on campus as well as 14 groups that are religion based. Conversely, 1 group that generalizes what it means to not believe in a god or organized religion.
I think the worst one was when I was told by an international student that as a woman it was my job to make him a sandwich (this occurred while I was at work). This was the most insulting thing I think I have ever had said to me and it takes quite a bit to offend me.
Another thing that bothers me, and this will probably show a little bias, is the amount of hatred and disdain shown for GLOW and other members of the gay community on campus. I am proud to be part of the Ally Network for GLOW even though I identify as heterosexual. The things that happen on this campus by people who don't even have the guts to say it (such as during 'coming out week' this passed September when someone ripped the flag that was hanging in the SLC down and threw it in the garbage). It was a flag. It wasn't hurting anyone.
Some might say that the flag was offending them so they felt compelled to tear it down. I think it's offensive that people treat LGBTQ people like they have a disease.
So with the Bruce Allen controversy, to some degree I feel as though the culture in Canada has been gradually disappearing. For example, for many years now children in public school can't do Christmas plays or sing Christmas songs. They're called 'Holiday' songs so we don't offend other religions.
I think everyone is entitled to what they think, but saying it out loud and changing my lifestyle and the lifestyle of my future children to suit you because you're the new person is a different issue.
I think we've made many sacrifices to our lifestyles to suit new immigrants so this sense of superiority needs to stop.
See you next time...
*Peace*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Atom Feed (xml)