Canada Gets Dibs on Obama

Obama's first trip as president will be to Canada, eh!

The day that the exact details will be released, I'm organizing a pr-Obama caravan. Mostly because I'm hoping that his classy ways will rub off on Harper and the like.

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?

Education And The Big Decision

One of the big questions that everyone faces in their lifetime is “What am I gonna be when I grow up?” which in North America today, typically translates into “Am I going to college or university”. It is not always that simple and there is a serious class issue at play here, but let’s assume for a minute that these are the only two choices available.

Which, if you’re living in Ontario, isn’t much of a stretch anyway. Early in a student’s high school career, they have to choose “Pre-University” or “Pre-College” courses. The new curriculum, thanks to Mike Harris, is set up this way. Which is no small decision when you’re 15 and know that this decision essentially seals your fate. Sure, you can do the “victory lap” and stay a 5th year in high school and re-take classes if need be. But the choice of either pre-university or pre-college is a big deal breaker for today’s high schoolers.

And even though it’s 2009, there are still major assumptions attached to each of these decisions. That “smart” kids go to university and “dumb” kids go to college. I can’t say I haven’t witnessed it myself. People downplaying, saying “Oh I only went to insert college name here”. Only. Like they skimmed the top and didn’t go all the way.

A new editorial in the CBC talks about this false dichotomy of smarts kids vs. dumb kids. It takes an interesting perspective because it’s written by an educator who readily admits that educators are part of the problem. The idea of “streaming” certain types of students into pre-college courses if they show signs of learning disabilities or behavioural problems, which assumes that every other kid wants to or is capable of university. It's also based on pretty serious stereotyping and downright discrimination against those with learning disabilities.

This is where I think his article is interesting. He says, and I readily agree, that it is not about smart kids vs. dumb kids but rather that some people are not cut out for university, not because of intellect but because of ways of learning. University is, after all, mostly theoretically based and if you’re in the social sciences in particular. Sure, there are tangible skills involved but it’s mostly for the intellectual type.

Lots of people talk about university being for a “certain type” of person but it’s veiled in assumptions that this type of person is “smart” and that “dumb” kids need hands-on stuff. But the author, and yours truly, digs the idea of it actually being about interest.

Take me for an example. I’m on year 6 of post-secondary and I fucking love it. But I also read theory for shits and giggles and yet I read an instruction manual and I’m both lost and bored after 5 minutes. I have the intelligence to put together something but I don’t want to. Much like how someone else has the capacity to read theory but would rather not. It’s not their bag. College does include theory, yes, but the whole set-up is not solely based on an intellectual exercise like university.

And this to me is the real college vs. university divide. Obviously there is more to it than that, in that college is typically fewer years and less tuition and there are certain things you can only take in college and certain things you can only take in university.

College, and particular in the trades, results in an amazing pay check nowadays, too. Ever gone to a mechanic? Had your toilet fixed? Remember how much it cost you? Ever used a product made of metal? If you answer no, you’re an idiot. Clearly you have and millwright is a college-learned trade. So are most police officers!

And your optometrist, public servant and lawyers are university grads. But you can’t live without one or the other. In order for shit to work, we need both university and college graduates.

So I think it’s high time for educators (and parents!) to re-examine the college vs. university divide and the streaming of students. It sets people up for failure, whichever direction they choose.

Rehearsing Our ABCs

Ahh, nothing says HAPPY NEW YEAR like a Conservative blunder. In this case, the fact that mere weeks after electing a new Parliament, and in the middle of a "prorogued" Parliament, right- wingers are already chanting the praises of reopening the abortion debate.

I've said many, many times before that this debate is as old as time itself and rarely, if ever, constitutes an actual debate. At this point, there's nothing left TO debate. That dead horse has been flogged for years.

Well it seems that the head cheese of the Conservative party, Canada's own PMO, had a brain wave once again and shot down the rumours of "re-opening" the abortion debate.

*phew*

There have been many, many outcries from the Left about this, but I wonder where they are were on election day. Didn't they hear the ABCs (Anything But Conservative) cries? Or maybe our numbers (ie: the lefty digits) are too low. Or maybe most of us, left, right and centre, are way too apathetic to care.

Can I blame them? Not really.

But truthfully, if there's a "debate" that could use re-opening, I say we attack capital punishment. Judging by the knee-jerk commentary on most news sites (CBC.ca and GlobeandMail.com in particular), "every-day" Canadians are wanting to go there. And those two sites are supposed to be bastions of lefty-thinkers, so imagine what the right-wingers are cooking up! And it's a debate that we haven't had in quite some time, so why not? Could be interesting. Maybe. Maybe not. But at least we're shifting the focus away from fetuses.

All I want for 2009 is to never have to write the words "abortion" and "debate" again. Let's see how it goes.

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?!

The Importance of Being Earnest

In case you and your cat haven’t heard, Oprah Winfrey weighs 200 pounds. Yes, that’s right. I said it.

Now I know this, not because I adore Ms. Winfrey but because it’s on the cover of her latest issue of O Magazine. It’s not just a sub-heading on her magazine but a full fledged screaming headline with a picture of her now, juxtaposed with a picture of her “then”. Then being when she wasn’t 200 pounds, I suppose. And the whole issue at hand is “how she let this happen again”. *cue horror music here*

Now let me start off by saying that I freakin’ love Oprah. Honestly. Genuinely. I’ve been watching her show religiously since I was a kid and although I don’t agree with everything she does or says or the people she endorses (I’m looking at you, Dr Phil), I still adore her.

So when I first saw that headline, and the subsequent stories about it, I thought WTF?! Who cares?! Oprah Winfrey is rich, successful, an incredible philanthropist and damn good at her job. So why does it matter what you weigh? And hasn’t she been flogging this dead horse for years?

But then I start thinking about what made her so successful in the first place. Mostly, her hard work and honesty. And she’s made an entire career out of being herself, being open about her faults and strong points and “self-improvement”. So in that case, I guess this plays into that quite well. She’s being honest about her weight problem (something she’s done from the start) and in many ways, just calling what everyone is saying.

Then I flip again and think that it’s so sad that someone as successful as Oprah Winfrey is constantly diminished down to her weight. As though what she weighs (or rather, how she looks) defines her success or lack thereof.

And this is reinforced by reading the Globe and Mail discussion boards, talking about this controversial cover story. Comment after comment after comment talks about how “She’s so rich and can afford all the trainers, self-help gurus and chefs in the world. Clearly she’s lazy and narcissistic” or “Wow, what a sloth” or “I hope she can afford all the medication she’s going to need” or my favourite, “She ONLY weighs 200? She looks way heavier than that!”

Which not only shows the lack of intelligence from most online posters, but also the real stigma and fixation that this society has on body weight and image. Oprah Winfrey made her career out of being “Just like every other womyn, just with better shoes” and yet we expect her to buy her way into a “perfect body”. While at the same time, hating on womyn who have gastric by-pass and/or cosmetic surgery because they’re “fake”.

So do I think that Oprah needs to be drawing attention to her weight again? I want to say no but she opened up that can of worms long ago so she can’t go back. Plus, according to her, the article is about demonstrating the realities of trying to maintain a “healthy” weight and that nobody, even the almighty Oprah herself, can succeed all the time.

I suppose this goes to show that she’s succeeded in being just like every womyn because even she can’t escape the wrath of impossible beauty standards.

Creeps and Cameras

Let us take a break from the chaos and confusion of Canadian politics to shift gears to..

Upskirting.

Ahh, “upskirting”. Which for the uninitiated, is when someone (typically a dude) uses a cellphone camera (or real camera, if they can manage) to take a picture up a womyn’s skirt/dress. Upskirting has become an umbrella term for also taking pictures down someone’s shirt, or just a general picture of their body in a sexual way.

The “key” to quality upskirting is going unnoticed, so these creeps pretend to send a text message or even just keep the thing hidden and snap away while you’re walking up the stairs, sitting on the bus, bending down in a store, etc.

Sounds like fun, doesn’t it? Especially when they post it online for the world to see. Put “upskirt” into Google and you’ll see what I mean. Entire sites dedicated to the stuff.

A recent article in Salon magazine outlines the legal ramifications in the US of A and how the laws, like the pictures themselves, aren’t very clear.

Most places have laws allowing anyone to take a picture of anyone “in public space or domain”. But like the article says, its one thing to take an artistic photo of pedestrians crossing a bridge and it’s another to take a grainy photo of someone’s ass.

Upskirting is a HUGE problem. I know people who do it. I’ve seen people do it and I can guarantee that someone’s done it to me. But how will I ever know? There are millions and millions of these pictures online and I don’t have time to go through them all. And besides, how will I even know if it’s me? And then when I find the pictures, then what?

There are little to no legal ramifications for this type of thing in Canada.

My issue about upskirting goes beyond that, though. Upskirting is like construction-worker-harassment to a whole ‘nother level. When I’m walking down the street and some asshat yells something at me or honks, I see them, I flip them off and I get pissed off.

But in today’s world, womyn are walking around and being monitored 24/7. And often times, have no idea. Foucault is rolling in his damn grave.

The fact that this exists and is such a huge phenomenon is reason number 81789032 for why I’m a feminist. If you needed any more proof that womyn are objectified and commodified, then you’ve got it, Buster.

I’m not saying that dudes don’t experience street harassment or that someone isn’t taking pictures of their asses either. Hey, I’m sure it happens. But the numbers don’t even compare. And so it’s about more than just the fact that North American womyn wear skirts/dresses and men typically don’t. It’s about the fact that time and time again, womyn are viewed as ready for the taking and that if they don't like it, they have to do something about it.

So what do we do? Do we call a moratorium on dresses in the summer? Ban cellphone cameras? As the Salon article outlines, upskirting is such a problem in Asia that all new cellphones have a loud and distinct shutter noise that goes off with each click, to alert people that a picture has been taken. Should this be mandatory for all new phones?

Will anything really solve the problem? I’m sure there are things that can be done but until womyn are seen as human beings with all the rights and responsibilities allocated to you know… human beings, I don't think a whole lot is going to change.

UPDATE: Thanks to MH for the heads-up about this case. It's mentioned in the Salon article above but this article lists the details. I'm giving a major trigger warning to any readers of this article.