How To Detect If Your Neighbour is A Feminist

Being the concerned citizen that I am, I thought it would be wise to put together a short check list for curious city folk, suburbanites and condo dwellers who think there's something rather... interesting about their neighbours but can't quite put their finger on why.

So here it is: If your neighbour fits the following criteria, they're probably a Feminist:

1- Their deck/balcony has a bicycle, bras hanging to air dry and a bajillion little pots of growing herbs and spices

2- "Party Night" consists of gender-queer folks showing up with platters of hummus and board games

3- There's always at least one cat in the window

4- The music emanating from the windows in the summer is loud, raw and contains a female vocalist and at least one banjo

5- Their mode of transportation is a bike, a hybrid or a really, really old car. Either a Volkswagen or a Chevette.

6- Said mode of transportation has at least one bumper sticker that rages about "The Man"

7- Garbage day sees them put out half a bag of garbage and four recycling bins

8- You've heard the words "patriarchy", "chauvinist pig" or "ignorant asshole" shouted at least once

9- Their house/apartment smells strongly of incense, candles, pot and/or a combination of all three.

And finally,

10- They stand at the mailbox and actually read all the junk mail, political pamphlets and spam they receive and then attempt to educate you, said neighbour, on why you should care.

Captain Obvious Strikes Again

U.K Press Slams Canada's Hosting of Games

Hum… duh? They’re hosting next so do you think they’re going to paint us in a pretty light?

An Open Letter to Online Commentators Everywhere

Dear Readers of Online News Articles,

Shut the fuck up. No, seriously.

Now in case this takes you by surprise, please, let me explain.

Online commentators used to be a rare breed; oh how I long for those days. Recently, online news portals have decided that they are going to “bring it to the people” and allow any asshole and their neighbour to comment on such things as an earthquake in Haiti, a white collar crime case or the Montreal Massacre.

In theory, this could be a great way to give people a voice. Let’s be honest; whether people comment or not, they typically have some sort of opinion on the matter. So why not share w/ the world, open up discussion and…. That’s where it falls apart.

Dimwits, like yourself Mr. “Canuck-for-a-buck” or “NeoConfromPEI” make ridiculously sexist, racist, xenophobic, classist, etc etc etc remarks under the anonymous guise of the internet identity. You’re not interested in having a discussion. Nope, you’re interested in flaming the shit out of the situation and/or offloading your years of intolerance on the World Wide Web.

Instead of being an intelligent human being who thinks things through, you shoot from the hip, like the Maverick that you are and give us gems like “The Liberals are behind this, AS USUAL” or “I say lock ‘em up and throw away the key” or my favourite “Deport their asses!” Ahh, from the mouths of babes.

Take December 6th, for example. It’s the National Day of Action and Remembrance for Violence against Womyn. Pretty significant day. This past year marked the 20th anniversary of the Montreal Massacre and as usual, right-wing asshole “journalists” laid down editorial after editorial blasting “feminists” for exploiting “one day into a tirade against all men”. Because apparently, Marc Lepine is one insane asshole and every other misogynist is a stand-up guy.

This year, you online commentators took it to another level and brought 21st century Islamaphobia into the picture. How delightful! Now, I obviously blame the journalists in question who fail to put 2 and 2 together and actually understand the gravity of violence against womyn, but that’s another story. Today, my friend, is about you. You and your incessant douchebaggery.

Apparently Marc Lepine was not a product of an environment and culture that condoned violence against womyn. Even though he left a note explaining in detail how he hated feminists and how he was conducting the massacre in order to seek revenge on the womyn who had apparently “stolen his position” at the school, this isn’t good enough for the online commentators of the world. Nope, apparently Marc Lepine did was he did because he was a Muslim.

News to me.

Oh and I would link to your fabulous comments but truthfully, I don’t want to draw more attention to them and hey, you don’t need evidence to make your points so I guess I don’t either.

To conclude, online hate mongers, please consider one of two things. First, enroll in some sort of educational program, whether formal or informal and educate yourselves about the ways of the world. Find out about the history of the conflict in the Middle East, systemic discrimination in Canada (Yes, in Canada), find out how the political system works, read some Canadian history. Hell, just read a fucking book. (Non-fiction, please).

Or two, get off the news sites and get back to World of Warcraft. Your hobbits surely miss you.

Sincerely,

- Feminist Catalyst

Captain Obvious Strikes Again

You can also file these two stories under "It's about fucking time".

First, Canada is now finally proposing new rules for the live-in caretaker program. For those of you who are unaware, the Live-In Caregiver Program is one of the few ways that womyn are able to immigrate to Canada and the system is incredibly exploitative. The rules and demands on the womyn are incredibly high whereas those who are enlisting their services have very little to no monitoring, rules or necessary criteria.

Womyn come to Canada through the Program and have to live in an employer's home for what used to be 2 years and then they can apply for residency. This is obviously putting womyn into precarious situations where if they are subject to abuse, exploitation or neglect by their employers, they often have no means or resources to get out because they need to maintain steady work in order to be eligible for residency. These new proposed regulations would mean that womyn have up to 4 years to complete the 2 years of work. "In addition, they will no longer have to undergo a second medical examination when they apply, and employers wanting to hire a nanny from overseas will have to pick up the travel costs and provide medical coverage until they are eligible for provincial health plans."(CBC.ca)

I generally think that Citizenship and Immigration Minister, Jason Kenney is a Grade-A douche but this is good and long overdue, news.

And in news that is so incredibly surreal, I still haven't quite processed it yet, "P.E.I. will soon have legislation allowing medical professionals to apologize to patients when something goes wrong without worrying it could haunt them in court."(CBC.ca) Currently, it seems, in P.E.I, if a doctor apologizes for something, it's considered an admission of guilt in court and will screw them if they are sued for malpractice.

I'm not naïve to the ways of the legal system, which often runs completely contradictory to common sense but Geez Louise... The fact that politicians are spending time on a Bill like this rather than other important things like, you know, Climate Change, poverty, violence, etc. is mind-boggling. You hear shit like this and no wonder people have completely tuned out of the political world. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that this is finally going to be enacted into legislation but the fact that it even needs to happen is 10 levels of sad.

So Many Stories, So Little Time

It’s been an incredibly interesting news day, today. So interesting that I could easily write 4-5 different posts. Instead, I’m going to do a round-up for you.

“Calgary Family Negotiates Homework Ban” – Headline pretty much says it best. A two child household was tired of spending hours on what they saw as “busy work” and so they negotiated with the school to only have them be marked on work they do in class. I think occasional homework is fine but only in high schools. Children need to be engaged in life and homelife in particular and so I say, go Calgary family!

“Better family planning could curb climate change: UN”- A new report by the UN Population Fund suggests making condoms and other family planning services more available will help combat global warming by reducing the world's population. Sex education around the world needs some serious, serious love (pun fully intended) and so whatever the reason, I say bring it on.

“Florida snowbirds take risks with HIV: study” - One more time with feeling, we need better sex education. A recent study has found Canadians age 50+ have skyrocketing rates of HIV, in particular those who vacation in Florida for the winter. The reason being that many of them go down to Florida and live the swinging single life, getting it on and being carefree without protection and thus end up with HIV. The rate of condom use for this age group is dismal. But part of the reason is that if you don’t get quality sex education when you’re young, you probably won’t get it all and yes, people over 50+ still get laid.

Add on that most people only use protection to avoid pregnancy and you’ve got menopausal womyn thinking “I don’t need protection now; I’m good to go!” They’re good alright; at getting the HIV.

And finally,

“McGill anti-abortion student group suspended” - Now, let the record state that I fully support an anti-choice organization's right to express their viewpoints. FULLY. However, in the case of McGill and other similar incidents, the anti-choice organizers were willfully spreading medical misinformation and postering campuses with graphic images in places where people had no choice but to see it. In McGill’s case, after many complaints from students, the McGill student association has suspended their official club status until they can reach some sort of resolution with the student council. Squashing freedom of expression? Not in my view.

Mmmmm.... Controversy, Part II

So back in May, the Governor General created an international raucous when she ate raw seal meat at an Inuit ceremony in the North. Canadians, including myself, applauded her while anti-seal hunt folks were up in arms.

Well, let’s put one more point towards the seal hunt camp because Parliament’s fancy, mucky-muck restaurant has added seal meat to the menu. This new item will join already existing meats like beef, pork and bison.

It’s a seemingly small gesture but it’s very impressive when you consider how controversial the whole issue is.

Once again, Michaël Jean for the win!

Smoking Out Big Tobacco

The Province of Ontario is joining British Columbia and New Brunswick in suing the big tobacco companies in order to recover money they've spent on tobacco related illnesses/deaths.

Now before I go on, let me establish a few things.

1- I am incredibly anti-smoking.
2- I have never smoked a day in my life.
3- I know and love people who smoke.
4- I know and love people who have suffered serious side effects (including death) as a result of tobacco.

And yet I'm left scratching my head about this lawsuit.

The Province is suing for 50 billion dollars; an amount they say they've spent on treating tobacco related illnesses since 1955. I actually think that amount is too low. I also think that people have known about the adverse effects of tobacco since 1975... So there's a 20 year window where personal accountability doesn't really come into play because people were just rolling with what the scientific data at the time was saying, which was that it wasn't that bad. Hell, even doctors were advertising the stuff!

So for that 20 or so year window, the tobacco companies knew it was bad but people didn't and so I understand that there's a serious accountability issue there.

But where's the personal accountability after that? What about between the 70s and now?

In our Health Care system, being the public system that is, we don't formally discriminate against illnesses. By that I mean that if you're suffering serious emphysema and you've been a- pack-a day smoker, the Health Care system can't say "Oh well, that was stupid, now deal with it on your own"; they've got to do their best to help you. So I understand that the Health Care system is stuck between Big Tobacco and Consumers. And I also understand that the Health Care System is you and me and everyone else living and paying taxes in Ontario. So it's my money that's being spent on big tobacco's side effects.

BUT it's also the Government, both Federally and Provincially, that monitors and governs the rules around Big Tobacco in this country. And so it seems incredibly short-sighted to be benefiting from the taxes and sales of tobacco, and then at the end of the line, suing them to recuperate the amount you've spent on the side effects in between.

The Government of Canada, in general, has such a backwards way of looking at the tobacco industry, much like alcohol and gambling. They benefit up front and then bitch about the after effects; after effects which were clearly foreseeable.

And suing Big Industry to recuperate what is essentially our money just doesn't seem like the right way to do it. Sure it looks incredibly aggressive and anti-corporate and therefore has a nice Erin Brockovich, David and Goliath vibe to it. But upon closer look, it just comes off as greedy and corporate as Big Tobacco itself.

Is Bruno a No-No?

As a lover of politics and humour, I have a soft spot for satire. I love satire. I love comedy in general, really. But I've found myself in more than one conversation with people about the merits of comedy as a tool of activism.

I've decided that yes, only people of a certain group can mock said group and no, that is not "reverse racism". It's just the reality that in order for something to be reclaimed, it has to take its power from the marginalized group. Otherwise, it's just racism. Now exceptions can be made if you're a well known ally in a certain community; see Kathy Griffin for example. She identifies as straight but is also considered a gay icon and therefore can drop bombs that would be seen as homophobic in another context. The reason being that she's gained the respect of the GLBTQ community, has supported, donated, etc for years and therefore is an ally and not some hillbilly making bad jokes. (Her jokes might be bad, to some, but they're not homophobic).

But what about satire? The big question about satire is:

When is it satire and when is it just stereotyping?

Jon Stewart's The Daily Show = Satire
Stephen Colbert's entire persona = Satire (Sorry Right Wingers; he's on our team)
The Simpsons = Satire

But then it gets tricky. What about Family Guy?

In having these discussions with various people, it seems that the measurement of whether something is satire or whether it's simply stereotyping is to look at both the creator and the audience.

Seth MacFarlane, who created "Family Guy" is also the mastermind behind "American Dad", a clearly satirical cartoon. Which would make one assume that Family Guy is in that category too, but then, I look at the Family Guy audience.

Most Family Guy audience members are not hispters, ex-academics or yuppies. Or even politico junkies. The Family Guy audience is high school dudes. Which is not the pigeonhole all high school aged dudes as being incapable of being down with satire. But "Family Guy"'s following is what troubles the issue for me.

Basically: If it's meant to be satire, but people take it at face value, is it satire anymore?

Ironically enough, this issue has come up in the last few days regarding (in my opinion) brilliant satirist Sasha Baron Cohen. SBC is the genius behind "Da Ali G Show", which consisted of him putting on various characters and then taking them to the streets, so to speak. Ali G was his first big character and since he wasn't exactly that different, nobody really paid any attention. But when SBC gave his one character "Borat" his own movie, then people started paying attention.

"Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan" was a huge success in North America. In promoting the movie, SBC stayed in character a la Colbert style. Not only is the guy a brilliant satirist, but he also has amazing timing. North America and the US in particular was really focused on the Middle East upon the release of "Borat" and so SBC attempted (I'll come back to this attempt piece) to highlight how Americans viewed Middle Easterners. The joke was not on people from Kazakhstan but rather on the reactions of real-life people to a Middle Easterner, in the film itself.

BUT! Like "Family Guy", if you don't get satire, then you take the movie at face value and see it as a crazy guy from Kazakhstan who can't speak English and hates Jews. And if that's what you're laughing at, then is it satire anymore?

Sasha Baron Cohen is running into this problem again with his new movie "Bruno" which is based off another "Da Ali G Show" character. This time the character is a flambouyant gay stylist from Austria. Considering Proposition 8 and the opposing Proposition H8 campaign in the US and how it's highlighted GLBTQ folks in the US of A, Sasha's timing is impeccable.

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation in the US of A is upset with certain scenes they saw in the pre-screening of "Bruno". These scenes, they say, cross the line of satire and are outright stereotypical; therefore the joke is on them and not the homophobes. But where's that line?

Coming back to the original descriptors of creator and audience, SBC is clearly a satirist and the hope is that the majority of people who see "Bruno" will understand that Sasha Baron Cohen is playing a caricature composed of stereotypes, therefore highlighting the lunacy of these stereotypes rather than promoting them. Like "Borat", the hope is that the viewers will laugh at the homophobic and outlandish responses that "Bruno" gets, rather than siding with said homophobes.

But what if they don't? Does it matter? Do the intentions of the creator matter if the audience takes it in a different direction? It's hard to say.

Although this might seem like a hipster's diatribe, I do think it's important. I think comedy has an important role to play in making social commentary and political commentary in particular. For example, one can't underestimate the role that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert play come election time. Rick Mercer, to a lesser extent, has that effect here in Canada. But their roles have been clearly established; their respective shows are so heavy on politics that they would naturally only attract audiences that are into that, too.

But what about Family Guy? Or hell, The New Yorker?

Fight for your Right to Party

Canadians might be apathetic, but as I've said before, they love their booze.

We don't vote and are generally lazy bastards, but don't take away our booze!

But in all seriousness, I think this doesn't just have to do with booze; I think it's generational, too. Pensioners, especially ex-union members, are tough as nails and don't get pushed around easily. They fight for their rights. Which is commendable these days, even if it's regarding beer.

Because You Don't Win Friends With Salad

A new study has found that when eating out and presented with a variety of side options (Fries, baked potato, salad) people opted for the fries more often than the salad.

The study was based on 100 college students who were presented with two different menus. When presented with the option of choosing the salad, they took fries instead.

This is a pretty big deal in terms of research because it flies in the face of the years of previous commentary from people that healthier choices are what's needed on menus. Hell, even McDonald’s has yogurt parfaits and apple slices now! Clearly the complaining has worked to get healthier options on the menu. But what these researchers are showing is that it doesn’t matter; people still choose crap.

There is a lot that can be chalked up for this. North America is a glutton society that loves its shit food. We should eat healthier but we don’t because we’re lazy, unmotivated, etc. Some people think that “healthy food doesn’t taste as good as nuggets and fries” hence their choices. And truthfully, if the words “healthy” always result in salad, then you can’t really blame people. It’s not really a choice. It’s either PICK ONE OF TEN AMAZING THINGS or SALAD. Maybe a variety of healthy food choices that don’t involve simply adding different types of salad is an option?

But I also think that it’s much simpler than that. In my opinion, when people go somewhere that sells “fries, chicken nuggets and baked potatoes” they’re not eating out to be healthy. They’re eating out for a “treat”; nobody goes to Wendy’s (which is a prime example of this type of menu) for salad. I say this as someone who loves the Wendy’s chicken salad and is terrified of their burgers. But I know that I’m not most people and I get that.

The people in this study were just presented menus and said “What would you prefer to eat?” When people choose to hit up Wendy’s or McDonald’s, it’s usually because they’re jonesing for a Bacon Mushroom Melt or a Big Mac, not chicken salad. If you wanted decent chicken salad, you’d go somewhere that specializes in chicken salad. Wendy’s is not this place.

Now if you have no choice in the matter, like you’re on a road trip for instance then you might be grossed out with so much take-out and choose the salad and apple juice choice. But the people in the study possibly hadn’t had take-out in a while and were thinking “Mmm… that’d be a nice treat”.

See what I’m getting at?

If you’re hitting up fast food, then you’re craving some fast food, something that you either wouldn’t or couldn’t make at home. The problem that I see, is if people always choose the shittier option, everyday. The key to fast food is not to demonize the stuff but to view it in moderation.

I went to McDonald’s as a kid and turned out okay. Why? Because it was a “treat”. We got a Happy Meal, we played in the ballroom; it was swell. If my parents had brought my ass there three times a week, different story.

And who knows? We’re dealing with 100 college kids here. They were probably recovering from 4/20 and were thinking FRENCH FRIES before the study had even started. It’s not impossible.

**A nice unhealthy donut to whomever can reference the blog title

Attention All Students!

Today's lesson: Take a book out from the library for so long that it becomes an artifact, not a late fee.

In Defense of Barbara

I was planning on writing a post about Barbie's 50th Anniversary this year and how I call myself a feminist and a major Barbie lover, but it seems that everyone has done this. Which makes me really happy, actually.

I could be sour grapes that other feminist bloggers have stolen my thunder, but the truth is, I'm happy to see that people are engaging in a critical analysis of Barbie.

In a nutshell? I understand that Barbie promotes unrealistic body ideals and that as a skinny, blonde, white girl growing up, I took that for granted. Barbie kinda looked like me, after all. But the truth is that Barbie was and still is in many ways, one of the few toys that didn't require you to mother it. She's not a doll in the typical sense of the word. You didn't feed Barbie, clothe Barbie or change Barbie like she was your child. You acted like you were her. And Barbie had some pretty bitchin' jobs, too. (For proof of how multi-tasking Barbie is, check out the amazing Sarah Haskins' video.)

Barbie was a "grown up" who was mature and not fetishized. She's a healthy way for young girls to see themselves as "older" without being... a Bratz doll. Hell, even the amazing Dora the Explorer got a makeover to look older and more attractive! Not cool. What was wrong with the other Dora?

So to me, the real magic of Barbie is that yes, she was an adult, but she wasn't telling girls to grow up and be an adult too quickly. Bratz et al on the other hand are telling girls that they can be adults now. All they need is to hike that skirt, lower that shirt and load up on the makeup. Barbie on the other hand, let you imagine you really were a Vet who was checking up on Skipper's dog or that you were cruising along the beach with your fancy car and all your lady friends. You were imagining it, after all.

So I say kudos, Barbie. You and your man have created impossible beauty ideals and promoted heterosexism above all else, but your plastic ways have also shown young girls (and boys!) that pretty girls aren't just pretty girls, they can be doctors, pilots, vets and singers, too.

Here's to 50 more years of synthetic tresses and disproportionate torsos!

Laugh of the Day

Alright ladies, here’s the deal: In case you thought that your liberation was the result of hard work fighting for suffrage, access to education, reproductive justice, or hell, even the right to wear pants, well girl, you are mistaken. Uh huh. According to the Vatican, washing machines are the real heroes in this story.

On International Women’s Day, the Vatican’s main newspaper had an editorial proclaiming that womyn around the world should be hugging their machines because the availability of the automatic washing machine is the number one cause of womyn's liberation. Apparently, it's what saved us. It liberated womyn from the labour of washing laundry which then allowed them to do other things. Like clean dishes, wash floors, fold the damn laundry, do the gardening, cook the meals…

Oh Vatican, keep the laughs a comin’. Honestly. This shit rules my world.

Of course, if you want my opinion, what really set womyn free was “the right to bare arms”. That's what really sealed the deal on our equality.

A Not-So Friendly PSA

FeministCatalyst interrupts to declare that:

The Term Reverse Racism Needs To Die.

Reverse racism's friends (.i.e.: reverse sexism, reverse discrimination) need to die as well. It's either discriminatory or its not. Yes, she understands the "logic" behind this term; that it defines an act of racism that goes against the usual forms of racism.

But the term and its uses make no sense and only serve to further discriminate against those who are actually, you know... discriminated against.

So remember kids, friends don't let friends use this term.

This Public Service Announcement has been brought to you by the letters F and U.

You may now return to your regular scheduled programming.

Screwed Over Employees Don't Take It Lying Down

... and this is news?

"Shocking" new report states that 59% of employees in an American study, took information with them when they left.

"Of those:

• 65 per cent took email lists.
• 45 per cent took non-financial business information.
• 39 per cent took customer information, including contact lists.
• 35 per cent took employee records.
• 16 per cent took financial information."

Is this really that shocking? It isn't good, don't get me wrong. As a frequent internet shopper and Debit Card addict, I don't like thinking about where my information has been and is going. But I also can't blame people, especially in a recession where job competitiveness is high and jobs in general are hard to find.

So when you get fired from your only chance at a paycheck, you're a little bitter so you take a little something with you. Or the competitor says that if you come and join them, they'll sweeten the deal if you sweeten your end with say... a list of contacts. Tit for tat, in either instance.

I can understand why people do it. But I also see how it's a vicious circle. You hate your job because your employer treats you like a child and micro-manages your every move, so you leave and take something with you for revenge, therefore reinforcing that you probably weren't very trustworthy to begin with and needed to be monitored.

See what I'm saying?

The only winners here are the researchers of this study. This is the kind of research I wish I was doing. I wish I was being paid to be Captain Obvious.

BABIES!

For once, I'm not talking about politicians. I'm talking about actual babies.

Is it just me or has the media become completely baby obsessed?

British couple have little girl; girl is 15 and boy is 13.

American womyn has octuplets. And they debate whether it was allowed.

And then there's Hollywood....

We had Jamie Lynn. Then Bristol Palin. Then they discussed the difference between the coverage of both. And don't forget Juno!

And of course, there's always the Brangelina brood. And then, they debated whether the octuplet womyn was obsessed with Angelina.

Hollyweird considered questions like: Is Suri Cruise too old to be drinking from a bottle? Is Salma Hayek addicted to breast feeding?


Now...

Don't get me wrong. I think it's important to pose questions about motherhood, constructions of motherhood, views of young motherhood and the like. These ideas, debates and discussions need to happen.

But everywhere I look, it's fucking babies! babies! babies! and I'm not seeing critical analysis. I'm seeing baby bump crazes and high-horse right (and left) wing pundits casting judgement on people whose stories and lives they know nothing about.

The only substantial thing I get about all of this, is that the concept of "choice" is a hell of a lot more nuanced than it initially appears.

And that giving birth to 8 babies looks really uncomfortable.

Phelps: Not Superhuman, After All?

Apparently Michael Phelps smoked weed at least once in his lifetime. Which is apparently, also really shocking to people.

News of the World published a photo of him taking a hit from a bong and now he's in full fledged bullshit apology mode.

This is the same guy who was already arrested for a DUI. This is the same guy who is 23 years old. . C'mon, people. Take a breather (but not from a bong).

Pardon me for not being beside myself with shock. Sure, he's superhuman in the pool and an astounding athlete. But he's also young, filthy rich and living a pretty ridiculous consequence free lifestyle.

Personally, the only real shocking thing from this Globe and Mail story about this new "shocking" photo is that Barack Obama admitted to not only smoking pot but "snorting cocaine when he could afford it" back in high school.

Seriously? Now that's badass.

Nothing Says Hope Like Puffed Pastry

In these poor economic times, with genocide in the Middle East and a general funk the world over, this is the kind of news that's really important.

BeaverTails will be available at Obama's inauguration on Tuesday!

(Someone please alert PETA that it is pastry and not someone's tail).

They're going to be made the original way with maple syrup and a large O in chocolate added.

Obama: Eat your heart out! Actually, don't... they're awful for you and we need you to be in tip top shape.

Kids Do The Darndest Things

Nothing sets the hearts of millions aflutter than the words “teen” and “sex” in the same sentence. Throw in the words “MySpace” and you might as well call in the fire department.

The proof is in the pudding on this one. A recent study on the MySpace profiles of teenagers obviously got picked up by the Free Press and well… that shit spread like wildfire. The terms “study on teenage risky behaviour” drew at last count, 279 different news articles from Google news. I’m telling you; people love this stuff.

So these US researchers conducted 2 different studies where they looked at the online profiles of young people aged 18-20 and out of a given sample, they counted how many mentioned or had pictures of them indulging in sex (or sexual behaviour, which yes… probably included those pictures of you pretending to lick your friend’s boob), alcohol, drug or violence.

They found to their surprise that a large majority of them did in fact make reference to some or all of those things. To see what it would take for them to no longer do this, they created a bogus account from a Dr and e-mailed them a warning about the risks of STDs, alcohol poisoning and “future embarrassment” of said content.

They went back 3 months later to find that most had removed the content. This could be, as the researchers believed, be due to some sort of “awakening” where they thought “Holy smokes, this stuff is killing me slowly!” or, as I’m more apt to believe, they got freaked out that some stranger was creeping on their MySpace and took it down.

This study is a giant pile. The researchers even know it, saying that there was not enough “data to draw any major conclusion”. Duh. But people still picked up the story and spread it like wildfire, with parents and boring folks across the world (There’s a newspaper in India running this story) up in arms about the illicit behaviour their kids demonstrate online.

Which, if you are surprised by this, you’re clearly out of the loop. Generation Y kids have grown up under a microscope. Literally in the sense of Big Brother constant monitoring, but then there's cellphone cameras (*ahem*), “reality” television and every “social networking” site imaginable. These people, myself included, live their lives online and so it’s no surprise that if you go to a party where you pretend to hump a guy from behind, you wouldn’t hesitate to add it to your online profile.

I think that if they really want to deter people from posting stuff online, they should include a session during Career Day about online profiles and future employment opportunities. I know that personally, I’m not afraid of any predators or the like because let’s face it, those folks exist everywhere and some freak would get off on a picture of you in a graduation grown if they really wanted to. The real deterrence is the implication it will have on your future job.

So on Career Day, have the usual people talking about what they do, how they hire, what you need to work there, etc. and then emphasize that “We do Facebook and MySpace searches so keep your sexy Bob Marley bong pictures and road kill photos to yourself”. THAT would be a deterrent. Especially in a recession! (Although apparently Obama will still hire you if you've got some of those).

Is it bad that the most shocking thing about this whole debacle for me was that people still use MySpace?

Paging Captain Obvious

And the "duh" award of the day goes to CBC on this lovely little gem:

"Reports reveal concerns over drug use among Canadian military"

Ya think?!