The Gender Issue

Before I proceed with this post, I want to start by saying that there are some truly wonderful women in my life.  Some I've known for many years, some are fairly new to me and some I've reconnected with after a long time.  I hope you all know who you are and how much you mean to me.  You ladies are exceptional...that's the key word here as I feel you are the exceptions.

I've had many friendships over the years, but I'm not very good at them.  I hate phones so I won't be calling you.  I live out in the boonies so getting together can be difficult.  I'm child-free while most of the women my age have kids which adds to the difficulty with scheduling, but also greatly changes the dynamic of the relationship.

Email made life a little easier as I could then keep in touch electronically, but I still had to find the ever elusive 'time' to write the email.  Facebook improved things greatly.  Now simply by reading my newsfeed I can keep informed of what's happening in people's lives and by adding to my own profile, they can see what's happening in my life.  A comment or 'like' here and there and we all feel like friends.

But all of that is just background for what this post is really about...gender differences in friendships.  For most of my life, my primary friend group has consisted of women.  Some have been (and continue to be) amazing friends, others have hurt me so badly that they have left me emotionally scarred.

The first one was in elementary school.  We used to see each other every day and suddenly she was 'busy'.  It took me a while to get the hint and she never talked to me again.  I saw her shun another girl the same way a few years later so at least I know I wasn't special.  As an adult I was particularly hurt by four different women in the span of 2 years.  Same situation....just suddenly left me hanging without warning or explanation. 

I understand that there are different types of friendships and that they come and go, but I really cared about these women and would have put them all in the category of 'besties'.  And when I asked what had happened in the hopes of making amends for whatever transgression I had committed, three of the four completely ignored me and the other sent me a vicious response that pretty much told me I should have known what she was thinking and that I wasn't worthy of her friendship.

All in all I boil each of these 'break ups' down to stereotypical female traits.  Women can be absolute bitches with the gossiping, back-stabbing, passive-aggressive behaviour.  They'll act like everything is peachy between you and then tell someone else that you're a bitch.  They hold grudges and can be vindictive.  I say 'they', but I know that I carry these traits inside me as well.  I try to suppress them because I hate them so much, but every once in a while they poke through.  On those occasions I try to acknowledge them, beat them back and make amends.

This is the reason that more often over the years I have turned to men for friendship rather than women.  That has its own set of issues, but I much prefer stereotypical male traits over stereotypical female traits.  That Y chromosome makes a really big difference.  Men tend to be more laid back, they don't gossip and don't hold grudges.  If you piss a guy off he tells you immediately and to your face.  You work it out and you move on.  Next day he probably couldn't tell you what he was mad about - it's over and forgotten.  It's just easier to be friends with men.

I generally don't even consider women for new friendships anymore (although some have gratefully still found their way into my life).  I have a hard time trusting women given my past experiences.  Even with my best female friendships there is a little niggling at the back of my mind wondering when and how they're going to break my heart.

My definition of a friend is someone I care about and who cares about me.  When I let myself care it happens quickly and intensely, sometimes without me even realizing that I've let you in.  If you care about someone you should be able to tell them when you're upset and why.  They can't read your mind and if they don't know what they did, then how can they fix it?  If it can't be fixed, the very least you can do is let them know that the friendship is ending and why.  To disappear and leave someone wondering what happened is just mean.

I surmise that some of my lost friendships relate to my views and how vocal I can be about them.  It's called passion and it's a trait that I quite like about myself so it isn't something I'm willing to change.  If that's the reason we can't be friends then I'm better off without you.  On the other hand, if you can disagree with my views and still be friends then you are exactly what I'm looking for.

Having said all that, I feel the need to add that men looking for anything other than platonic friendship need not apply. 

If I Believed I Had a Soul, It Would be Made of Music

A friend recently sent me some information on a little known trait called Sensory-Processing Sensitivity (aka Highly Sensitive Person).  I scored very high on the Self Test (various statements with which you agree or disagree) implying that I, along with 20%-30% of the general population, have this trait.  There was one statement on the test that struck me at the time and sticks with me still:  I am deeply moved by the arts or music.

I have always been moved by music - both emotionally and physically.  If it has a beat, not only can I dance to it, but I must.  These days we're surrounded by people listening to mp3 players and yet most of them are sitting or standing still.  I've never understood that.  If I hear music I am compelled to move...anything from tapping my hand or foot all the way to dancing around the room.  I have even been known to break into dance in the middle of the mall.  So yes, I am deeply physically moved by music.

Then there's the emotional.  First off there's the lyrics - I listen closely to lyrics and they often speak to me.  I get wrapped up in the words and find how they relate to my life...past, present, future.  Sometimes it's just a line or a theme or, on occasion, an entire song might touch me profoundly.  In high school I used to write poetry.  I mostly wrote for fun, but sometimes I wrote to help myself work through personal issues.  Lyrics are just poetry set to music.

Then there's the melody and tempo.  This is the part that can affect my mood without me even realizing it.  I have to be careful when I'm driving because a fast and/or angry song can cause me to begin driving more aggressively while during a peaceful song I might find myself under the speed limit.

The genre isn't particularly important to me.  I can enjoy just about everything from Bluegrass to Grunge to Classical.  It all depends on my mood.  But certain instruments reach me more than others. 
The cello is by far my favourite - the sound is rich and exquisite. 
      The Cello Song - (Bach is back with 7 more cellos) - ThePianoGuys

Next is the piano - it has such range and diversity.  There was a boy with whom I went to elementary school who was an extremely talented piano player at such a young age.  He would sometimes play a song during assemblies and, even being so young myself, it would often bring me to tears.
      Für Elise (Piano version)

Third is the acoustic guitar - I grew up with my father listening to Bluegrass guitar records (generally really early and loudly on Saturday mornings!) and I hated it at the time, but I guess it just stuck with me.  I like the 'scratchiness' of it.  In the right hands it's just lovely.
      Paul McCartney - Blackbird [Live Acoustic] [High Quality]

So yes, I am deeply emotionally moved by music. It stirs me.  It touches me.  It makes me feel.  Indeed if I believed in souls, mine would definitely be made of music.

(The arts move me too, but that's a story for another day.)

First Love

Picture it....Southern Ontario, early 1980's, grade 3 morning English class.  The desks were set up in groups of four.  I have no memory whatsoever of who sat across from me, but I'll never ever forget the boy sitting next to me.  He was cute with his curly red hair and freckles.  He was smart and funny, kind and caring, quite shy and loved animals.  We became friends and would spend every recess together by the fence talking about....well...whatever 8 year olds talk about.  I specifically remember him telling me about his cats....one of them had lost an eye in a fight.

I had a lot of crushes on various boys throughout my childhood.  I don't remember ever going through a 'boys are icky' phase.  I was always drawn to them.  Some were cute and some were funny and some were smart....it didn't take much to catch my eye, but it was always very short lived.  As much as the boys intrigued me, they were still boys and would inevitably do something stupid and that would be the end of that.


The boy sitting next to me was never a crush.  I fell hopelessly, madly, completely in love with that boy.  The only 'stupid' thing he did was not love me back, although I forgave him for that. 

I made no secret of my love.  I was feeling so much and I wanted to share it with the world.  Over the next four years I sent him notes and poems, I followed him around, I watched him play marbles at recess and cheered every time he won.  When his picture was in the paper I cut it out and stuck it to my bedroom wall.  I joined the chess club because he did.  I like chess, but I've never been any good at it.  I'm just not good at games involving long term strategizing - I don't have the patience for it.  On several occasions I have actually been beaten in only three moves - it doesn't sound possible, but that's just how bad I am at chess.  But that didn't matter.  All that mattered was that I got to spend more time with that boy.

So in essence, I became his stalker.  I made no physical advances, but I was always there watching him with puppy dog eyes.  I'm sure every single kid in that school knew and I didn't care.  Thinking back on it, I feel really bad about my behaviour.  I'm betting that my attention probably got him teased a lot by the other boys.  As mentioned above, young boys tend to do stupid things and they can be quite mean.  If I ever saw that boy again, the first thing I would do would be to apologize.  It breaks my heart to think that I could have ever caused him to suffer in any way.

Our friendship pretty much ended when I made my feelings for him known.  He was never mean, but he just kind of drifted away from me.  That might have happened regardless since we were heading towards an age where boy/girl friendships weren't really the norm.  Boys were friends with boys and girls were friends with girls and when mixing did happen, it had nothing to do with friendship.  But still, every year on my birthday that boy would make a point of approaching me and talking to me.  Just a little basic chit chat and then he would wish me a happy birthday and walk away.  It was the best gift I could have gotten. 

It's been thirty years since I first fell in love with that boy and I'm still in love with him today.  I know I always will be because I loved him for all the right reasons - he was truly worthy of my love.  I think of him often.  I've even searched the internet for him with no luck.  I wonder where life took him and whether he's happy.  I hope he is.

This Opinion Piece Gives Me A Headache

http://www.therecord.com/opinion/columns/article/700014--decriminalization-of-prostitution-is-the-wrong-solution

This article just annoyed the hell out of me.  Thank goodness it was in the "Opinion" section and they weren't considering it actual journalism.

Let's start with the title "Decriminalization of Prostitution is the Wrong Solution".  Prostitution is legal in Canada.  I'm fairly certain it has always been legal.  Therefore suggesting that making it legal is the wrong solution is an absolutely false statement.  What hasn't been legal are three fairly major elements involved - operating an establishment for the purpose of prostitution, being found in such an establishment and publicly communicating for the purpose of prostitution.  One could however email someone and offer them sex for money then meet at a hotel and complete the transaction - no laws broken.

"a step backward for human rights"

How is it a step backward for human rights to give people the right to do whatever they want with their body?  Apparently giving people freedom is a bad thing?

"the court ruled vaguely that living off the avails — pimping — remains illegal “in circumstances of exploitation.”"

I find it interesting that the writer thinks this is vague, but then throughout the article describes several examples of this exploitation.  I think he's actually pretty clear on the circumstances of exploitation.

"I have seen firsthand the reality of the sex trade. Working on a program to address the exploitation of women in the notorious Thai sex trade brought me to the roadside brothels along the Thai-Cambodia border — where young girls are first exposed to prostitution — and on to their ultimate destination, the sex clubs of major cities."

I hardly think the child sex-trade in Thailand can be compared to loosening up the laws in Canada for adult men and women.  What's happening in Thailand would still be illegal in Canada even with these changes to the laws.  Hello!  Minors, exploitation, slavery, kidnapping, selling children....  Seriously - what does this have to do with allowing one consenting adult to sell a personal service to another consenting adult in a safe environment?

This

and this

are not the same as this

 "how has our collective moral compass become so unhinged that we see nothing wrong with exploitation as a commercial enterprise?"

Do you not remember just mentioning that the exploitation part is still illegal?  You should really read your own writing.

"Last year, Waterloo Regional Police responded to more than 200 calls regarding prostitution and laid more than 50 criminal charges"

Yes - if these were charges relating specifically to the laws that have been struck down, I too am highly disappointed that so much police time has been wasted.  Oh - that's probably not what you were going for.  If on the other hand these charges related to physical abuse or minors prostituting themselves or other exploitative behaviours then this is good as those things are and should be illegal.  Thank you to our police force for helping to keep our citizens safe!

"Thaler opposes repealing prostitution laws, though his reasoning might surprise decriminalization advocates. To him, it’s not a law enforcement issue: it’s an issue of human exploitation."

Again - exploitation still illegal. 

""People involved in prostitution are mostly victims,” he says. “It’s part of a high-risk lifestyle, stemming from drug addiction and mental illness. “"

Yes - in the current system this seems likely (although I'd still like to see the studies that show this).  When we have a society where there are children living on the streets and adults can't make ends meet and end up homeless, it's reasonable to assume that many turn to prostitution out of desperation for money.  And drug addicts certainly don't make the best life decisions.  And those with mental illness and living in the street are often not mentally capable of proper consent.  Yet the prevailing thought in this statement (and the next couple paragraphs) is that these law changes will make this situation worse.  In fact these changes would have no negative effect whatsoever on these particular victims.  How many homeless and/or financially desperate people do you know that own a premises that can be used as a brothel?  Their only real option in the profession would still be soliciting on the street which would remain illegal.  Or perhaps they could go to work at a legitimate brothel where it would actually be safer.  How about we realize that these are actually symptoms of larger issues and deal with those rather than blaming prostitution and punishing those who legitimately choose the profession.  It would be similar to saying that Actors & Actresses often become addicted to drugs so we should make cinematography illegal.

"Prostitution is sexual exploitation, not work."

When you get right down to it, all work is exploitation for money.  I only work because I need money.  My job just happens to be numerical exploitation instead of sexual.  But I consent to it.  I have chosen to exploit myself in this way.  I believe firmly that everyone should be able to choose how they exploit themselves.  And it should be fully regulated and taxed.  And if they choose sex over flipping burgers or selling cars then so be it.

"Decriminalization does not solve the exploitation that is intertwined with the sex trade"

No it does not, because they are two separate issues.  And haven't we already covered the whole exploitation issue?  You've forgotten already?  STILL ILLEGAL!!!

"it sends the message that the sexual abuse of another is acceptable, as long as money is exchanged."

Why is sex synonymous with abuse?  Does my husband abuse me every time we have sex?  Am I abusing him?  There is nothing wrong with consensual sex whether it be for love or money or just a good time.


"It emboldens the pimps who prey on the vulnerable"

Still illegal!

"and the ‘johns’ who believe it their right to rent someone’s body."

It is their right to rent anything that is being freely offered for rent.  It is my right to "rent" my massage therapist's hands to relax my muscles.  It is my right to "rent" my dental hygienist's hands to clean my teeth.  It is my right to "rent" my accountant's brain and mouth and hands to do my taxes.  Every legitimate service out there is "renting" a part of someone's body to do your bidding.  Prostitutes have just chosen to "rent" a different part of their body.

"It makes it harder to combat by removing some of the legal mechanisms available to address it. “Prostitutes are often controlled by pimps who use violence, and find themselves in situations where they risk violence from their customers,” says Thaler."

Actually it makes it easier, by regulating it!  Just like auditors walk in to my office regularly to ensure that everything we do is legit, so to would inspectors be able to inspect a brothel.
If a prostitute who is working illegally on the street is beaten by her pimp or john, what is she going to do? Call the cops?
If I am beaten by my boss or co-worker or client, I have the justice system to fight back.

If a prostitute who is working legally in a regulated brothel is beaten by her supervisor or co-worker or client she too can use the police and the justice system to protect her.
And have I mentioned recently..... pimps + violence = EXPLOITATION = STILL ILLEGAL!!!


"“The laws provide us a mechanism to interrupt this cycle of exploitation.”"

The new laws certainly would.  The old laws?  As Dr Phil would say - "How's that workin' for ya?".


"Prostitution is damaging and degrading — to the prostitute, their customer and, ultimately, society."

Consensual sex is not abusive and it certainly isn't degrading.  I have fought my whole life to get rid of this stigma.  If anything, the stigma itself is what damages society.  Sex can be wonderful and/or beautiful and/or exciting and/or make your eyes roll back in your head and your toes curl.  And it can be all these things whether it be monogamous or with a few partners or with many partners.  It is what you make it.  If you don't agree with prostitution then don't become a prostitute and don't hire a prostitute.  That's the beauty of freedom and consent.

"Decriminalization is an abandonment of people at the margins of our society."

Again - no!  The two are unrelated.  Yes there are prostitutes.  And yes there are people in need of help.  Sometimes the two become one.  We have the ability to both allow the legitimate prostitutes to have the freedom to do with their bodies what they will AND create or improve social programs to help those "at the margins" who need it.  The two are not mutually exclusive. 

"We can and should do better."

Yes we should.  But first we as a collective society need to acknowledge what is and isn't an issue.

On Life, Death & Who I Want to Be

I am always saddened to hear that someone has died.  It doesn't matter whether it was a friend, family member, celebrity or perfect stranger.  Death is sad.  First off there is the sadness surrounding the life that could have been lived.  More so is the thought of the family and friends that are left to mourn their loss and find a way to move forward.  However, unless the individual was someone with whom I felt particularly close, the sadness I feel is reserved and not to the level of actual grieving.  If I fully grieved for every passing I would be left in a whirlwind of despair.  As an atheist I believe I only have this life to live and that constant deep depression would not be a good use of the short time I have.  Death is after all just another part of life.

I seem to be making an exception to my rule.  This week the world lost Christopher Hitchens and I am finding myself grieving.  He was not a friend.  He didn't know me and I can't even really say that I knew him.  I've read his books and articles and I've watched his interviews and debates so I know many of his views and thoroughly enjoy his writing, but I couldn't even begin to truly know him.  A lot of the time I didn't even agree with him.  I often found his views on foreign situations in particular to be repugnant.

Yet I admired him.  Probably more than anyone else.  The reason for this is his strength and courage in the face of adversity.  I'm not even talking about his fight with cancer although it would be a good example.  I'm talking about the way he lived.  Every one of his opinions was based on extensive knowledge along with many first hand experiences.  His opinions were generally unpopular and he often put himself in the minority, but he still stood strong - not necessarily unwavering, but strong nonetheless.  He was willing to put himself on center stage to fight for what he believed in and not just so he could spew his one-sided ideas to the masses.  He was at his best when he was debating those who were deemed to be the best of the best of the opposition.

I found him utterly inspiring.  While I'll never have his eloquence or his quick wit, I will still aspire to his courage and confidence when it comes to speaking out about the things that spark my passion.  I will do my best to present well thought out and researched views while still listening to those who disagree with me.  I will emulate his honesty and humour. 

My passionate views have already lost me my fair share of "friends", both personal and virtual (ie Facebook), but I will soldier on regardless.  Hitchens has demonstrated to me the importance of remaining vocal on important issues regardless of the backlash.  The backlash for Hitchens has occasionally led to vicious beatings.  I think I can handle the end of a few relationships.  Those who distance themselves from others based solely on opposing views show a certain weakness in their own character.  I would therefore counter that these people were never actually my friends at all as they weren't willing to accept and care about me as the outspoken person I am rather than the reticent person they wanted me to be.  I personally care deeply about the views of my friends even when they are polar opposite to my own. 

So this is why I find myself mourning the loss of Hitch.  I feel like the world has lost an amazing role model.  At least we can be grateful that he lives on through YouTube where he will continue to inspire future generations to think for themselves!

When did everything become a commercial???

I have no problem with product placement in movies and tv shows.  You want to drink an ice cold coke during your barbecue - go right ahead.  Pass by a MacDonald's on your drive to work - no problem.  It's subtle and people give you money for it - more power to you.



So I'm watching Being Erica a few weeks ago and in the middle of a scene it is decided that Julianne is drinking too many lattes and her assistant suggests that she should try the all new <insert water infusion product here>.  This wasn't just some quick placement.  It was a 5 minute discussion about how delicious it was and how handy they were as you could just add them to water.  Oh and can you believe it's low calorie and caffeine free?  When they finally got back to their regularly scheduled script I just shook my head and let it go.

So a week later I'm watching Being Erica again and the show starts with Erica test driving the all new <insert car brand here>.  In the next 5-10 minutes we learned all about the hands free technology, the fuel efficiency, the "I'm too lazy to learn how to park so my car will do it for me" assist, and all the other bells and whistles they could throw in there.  And did I mention that Julianne also talked again about the product from the prior episode - It's just so darn tasty! 

Fast forward to today when I'm reading the new House of Night novel and I get to a part where Zoey wants clarification on what one of her professors is telling her so she compares it to TrueBlood.  Okay that's fine, but professor doesn't know what she's talking about so she goes into more detail and then adds that the books are actually called the Sookie Stackhouse novels "by a cool human author named Charlaine Harris".  They both then agree that they should read the books.  

WTF????  Now my books are advertising other books!!  I wonder if Shakespeare could have gotten a few extra shillings if he had mentioned the all new Lye soap for removing that damn spot.

It Would Be My Privilege

I'm a regular reader of The Blag Hag and generally enjoy Jen's blog.  I do however find it hard to relate when she starts talking about feminism.  I often find myself rolling my eyes and thinking that she really needs to get a life.  Harsh I know, but my opinion nonetheless.

One such occasion related to a post by The Friendly Atheist (another favourite of mine).   Hemant had written a post discussing an interview with Kari Byron from Mythbusters.  He ended the post with "This whole post was really just an excuse to post a picture of Kari."  It was an obvious tongue in cheek comment about someone that Hemant admires for her mind and views but who also happens to be a very attractive woman.  I read the comment and laughed.

Jen's response was "only appreciating a woman for her looks and not for her intelligence is not a joke - it's a negative mindset that joking helps perpetuate."

To this my response was "Enough already!" <eyes rolling>

These posts were written several months ago and I had pretty much forgotten about them until the fairly recent "Elevatorgate" scandal.  A good summary of all the craziness that ensued can be found here.  In short, Rebecca Watson (Skepchick) was propositioned by a man she didn't know while alone in an elevator with him in the middle of the night after a conference.  All of the comments surrounding this situation really got me thinking.  The one that really tipped the scales for me was Jen's response to Richard Dawkins after he pretty much blew off Rebecca Watson's point that this incident made her feel at best uncomfortable and at worst fearful.

With that background, I'll get to my point.  Jen pointed out that Richard has the privilege in this situation of being a man and therefore couldn't possibly fully understand what it feels like as a woman to be vulnerable to a man:  "You don't live in fear of rape, knowing that one wrong misinterpretation of a couple words could lead down that road."  I, as a woman, completely understand how Rebecca felt in that elevator.  It's the same reason that I don't go out alone at night.  I acknowledge that most men are probably good, but what if I happen to run into one that wants to hurt me?  How can I defend myself against someone who is most likely larger and stronger than me?


This concept of privilege in turn got me thinking about feminism.  In my fairly sheltered life I haven't really had the misfortune of having to deal with much sexism.  I have been taught all my life that women are equal to men.  I found myself in a profession where men and women are fairly equally represented.  Of the four managers in my department, two are men and two are women.  The Assistant Vice President is a man, but the Vice President is a woman.  I feel no sexual discrimination whatsoever.  It never really occurred to me, in this day and age, that this was in any way out of the ordinary.

Then I thought about the life of The Blag Hag.  Jen is a student at the University of Washington working towards her PhD in Genome Sciences.  She's a scientist.  Now how many female scientists can you think of?  Not one other than Marie Curie actually comes to my mind - not a good thing.  She is in an extremely male dominated field.  I would hazard a guess that she feels sexual discrimination first hand on a regular basis.  It's no wonder she's so much more sensitive to it. 

So in the end, I realize that my privilege has blinded me to the fact that gender discrimination is alive and well.  We women need to continue fighting for equal rights and respect.  I still strongly disagree with Jen's reaction to Hemant on the Kari Byron comment - it was after all an innocent joke from a man who consistently shows respect and admiration for women.  In taking a step back though, I can now see where Jen is coming from and why she reacts the way she does to situations that I find trivial.  Perspective is a good thing.

On The Subject of Bullies...

I was recently talking with someone about the bullying that was happening when I was in school (elementary through high school).  I had always known that some kids, myself included, had been teased or picked on, but I was completely unaware of the violent behaviour with which some of my classmates had to live.  I wasn't totally naive - I knew that such things existed, but even now I find it very hard to accept that these situations were happening under my nose.  I can only imagine the daily hell that those kids endured and I sincerely hope that in the end they were able to get out from under it and move forward without too much lasting trauma.  No one of any age deserves this type of abuse.

I was never a popular child, but I seemed to be able to get along adequately with most people in all of my schools.  Even in high school I generally felt comfortable whether I was talking to the Athletes or the Keeners or the Druggies.  I think having a few close friends made the day to day grind easier to maneuver.

I do remember one incident in grade 8 that has stuck with me for both good and bad reasons.  I was walking across the school field on my way home after school and was in effect swarmed by a boy and his friend.  They were on their bikes and were riding circles around me while verbally taunting me.  It really scared me and I guess I kind of snapped.  As the main boy rode past me I did a kind of roundhouse kick and knocked him over and yelled at him "FUCK YOU!"  If you knew me then you would know that this was completely out of character for me.  Swear words did not come out of my mouth....ever....especially that caliber of swear word!!  I then took the opportunity of their surprise and ran home, crying the whole way.

Upon arriving my mother insisted I tell her what was wrong so I told her the whole story, including some prior incidences with the same boy.  She immediately called the school and I was mortified.  How embarrassing to have my mommy fighting my battles and everyone would find out about what had happened and what I had done.  Yes - you heard that right - I was concerned about what people would think of MY BEHAVIOUR!!!

The next day I was called down to speak with the Vice Principal.  The boy was there too.  I was terrified that I was going to be in trouble and I was embarrassed about what this boy had put me through.  She sat us both down and asked me first to tell her what had happened.  I was completely honest and told her everything - even the part about the dreaded swear word.  She looked at me for a moment and then looked at him.  I waited in fear.  She then turned back to me and said "I would have done exactly the same thing.  You can go back to class now."  

That moment changed my life.  The Vice Principal showed me that I was allowed to stand up for myself.  Not only allowed, but encouraged.  She empowered me and I have held on to that power to this day.  It fuels my fire when I see injustices in the world.  It gives me the strength and confidence to stand up and say "NO!"  It's also given me a loud mouth and opinionated personality.  Some may find my soapbox irritating or obnoxious, but to those people I proudly say "Bite me!"  :)

That boy never bothered me again, although he did start to pick on a friend and I again stood up to him with my new found confidence (albeit with far less violence) and I'm pretty sure he didn't bother her any more either.


Bullying is something that I know goes on daily in our schools and even thereafter.  I hope that people of all ages can find strength in my story or from friends or authority figures.  The bullies are generally in the minority so if we all band together to stand up to them how can they possibly win???

Best Comments So Far About the May 21st Rapture

"I just hope no one is raptured in my drive-thru or it will throw off my speed of service times something fierce." - Thorarin (commenter on Friendly Atheist)

"I'll have the iPad with me, ready to blog about all the Republicans zooming up into the sky." - PZ Myers (aka Pharyngula)

"Be sure to wear Protection Factor 15 if you walk amongst the heathen today." - Tim Spence (commenter on www.justsaypictures.com/rapture-gopher.html)

"The Sunshine Coast Atheists in Queensland has planned a 21 May party at which we will sit on a member's back deck to watch the good Christian citizens of our region ascend into heaven.
In anticipation of the fate awaiting us, we've planned a curry dinner - might as well get used to the heat. We believe a copious intake of alcohol on the Saturday night will prepare us well (and possibly enhance our flammability) for Judgment Day on Sunday." - Kristy (commenter on Pharyngula)

"Seriously, when the Bible was written and the Rapture was planned, instantaneous communication across long distances was unheard of. The Big Sky Fairy may not have taken that into account." - Menyambal, Son of Sambal (commenter on Pharyngula)

"Did they specify if the "6pm local time" takes daylight savings into account?" - Wilson (commenter on Pharyngula)

"Is it possible to postpone it a couple of days? Saturday is not a good day for me, I have other plans..." - MichaelEybye (commenter on Pharyngula)

"I just took a quick look at my VISA card bill. It's due on... May 22nd! Yay!" - SirBedevere (commenter on Pharyngula)

Why I Do Actually Care About the Royal Wedding

I don't care about the Royal Wedding in the way that most care about it.  Not in the joyous, get up at 4am to watch it, thinking it is wonderful news in a world full of violence and sadness kind of way.  I care about it in the angry that tax payer money is being wasted when a large portion of their citizenry are fighting to make ends meet and many are not succeeding kind of way.  Weddings are joyous by nature, but this one is far too wasteful to bring me anything but sadness and anger.

Let's get one thing perfectly clear.  I wish William and Kate much happiness in their marriage and life together.  The same as I would wish any newly married couple or really any human being regardless of their situation. But that's just the point - These 2 individuals are no more important than you or me or anyone else on the planet.  William is no more important simply because he was born "royal". 

I don't always agree with the writings of Thomas Paine, but I think he hit the nail on the head with this one:
"To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession; and as the first is a degradation and lessening of ourselves, so the second, claimed as a matter of right, is an insult and imposition on posterity. For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever, and tho' himself might deserve some decent degree of honours of his contemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them."

There are many estimates out there for how much money was spent on this wedding.  One estimate notes 20 million pounds.  Another source suggests that the bill is closer to 80 million pounds.  Yet another source discusses the cost of the event to the actual economy as a whole. 

I am a capitalist by nature.  I believe that if you work hard and earn money you should be able to use that money for whatever makes you happy.  Charlie Sheen is a perfect example.  He has worked hard on many television shows and movies and he has made ample money.  He has chosen to spend that money on hookers and drugs.  I'm okay with that.  It's his money and he earned it and the right to spend it as he pleases.  Bill Gates is another example.  He has more money that he knows what to do with and contributes mass amounts to charitable causes.  While I find Gates to be far more admirable than Sheen, I find neither of them to be right or wrong.  So if someone has earned millions of dollars and they want to spend it all on a lavish wedding I say go for it.

But here's the problem.  The members of the royal family do not have jobs.  They have not earned any of the mass amounts of wealth they possess.  So where do we think all the money that is paying for this wedding has come from.  The tax payers of course!  So I'm sure that since the tax payers are footing the bill, they were all invited right?  Of course not!  How silly!  What would they wear?

This brings me to why this makes me angry.  To forgive Charlie Sheen for feeding his drug and sex habit rather than feeding the poor is one thing - taking care of those less fortunate than him is not his responsibility.  To forgive the royal family for feeding their lavish lifestyle rather than taking care of their far less fortunate citizens is something completely different.  The money they are using is for the sole purpose of taking care of their people.  How would we feel if Stephen Harper or Barack Obama used tax dollars to pay for the extravagant weddings of their children - or even a modest ceremony for that matter.  There would be an uproar and possible criminal charges for misuse of public funds!!! 

An article from December 2010 stated that:
"Those dependent on emergency food boxes, which contain a three-day ration of essentials including tinned meat, fish and fruit, pasta, tea, milk and sugar, has increased from 25,000 two years ago to 60,000, of whom some 20,000 will be children. The organisation estimates that, on current trends, this would swell to 700 food banks feeding 500,000 people by 2015."
and:

"Last week it emerged that 3.7 million children live in poverty in Britain with a record 2.1 million working families now below the breadline. The situation will get worse in coming months as food prices rise, VAT increases to 20 per cent, and job losses due to public sector cuts mount."

and:

"Traditionally, the homeless have been the main beneficiaries of free food parcels. But organisers say they are increasingly helping families and working people. Some parents are so desperate they skip meals or contemplate crime to feed their children."

How sickening that tax dollars are going to celebrate, feed and entertain the rich while so many are suffering. 

My Own Little Foxhole

There's an expression that there are no atheists in foxholes.  It implies that even the most militant atheist will turn to a higher power during high levels of stress or danger.  This is something I've often wondered about on a personal level.

I didn't grow up in an outwardly religious family, but I was surrounded by the idea of God through friends, television, books, movies etc.  I learned more about the concept of a personal god in high school going so far as to accept Christ into my heart during one ill thought out moment. 
Meryn Cadell sums that moment up nicely:
"And then later in the car, my hot-from-crying face against the window, shutting out the conversation around me, I thought about what I'd said .....and I already doubted it. So intangible, so surreal.
Lettin' Christ into my heart? I didn't even know the man."

After high school I really started to examine my beliefs - not just figuring out what I believed, but looking more deeply at why I believed it.  This led to the search for evidence.  I couldn't find any evidence for the existence of Jesus at all - I'm talking primary resource material which completely excludes the bible and anything written based on the bible.  This lack of evidence pretty much made the whole prophet / lunatic / son of God controversy moot. 

While I also didn't see any evidence for a personal god, I wasn't yet ready to let go of the entire concept.   As more and more time passed and my research continued, my views began to evolve.  Gradually it went from acknowledging the existence of a higher power to doubting the existence to more recently denying the existence.  I will still never confidently proclaim that there is no god just as I will never confidently proclaim that there are no pink unicorns on Jupiter.  You can only prove the non-existence of something within very specific parameters and I don't have that ability.  I will however say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and I have yet to see any.  Until such evidence becomes available I will continue to view all religions and thoughts of gods or goddesses as primitive superstitions which have no place in today's societies (and especially in schools, governments and legislation).

This brings me to my foxhole pondering.  While I feel good about walking away from these superstitions, I have often wondered how I would react in a dangerous or traumatic situation.  Would I leap wholeheartedly back and pray for some sky fairy to save me?   I recently got my answer.

Almost a month ago I hit a patch of black ice while driving on the highway and lost control of my vehicle, swerving violently and rolling off the edge into the median.  I would imagine that others who have had similarly dangerous experiences will understand when I say it all happened so quickly, but in slow motion.  Because of the slow motion I can honestly remember everything that went through me head at the time.  First there were some expletives which were expelled from my mouth and I won't detail those here.  Then I remembered hearing or reading somewhere that many of the injuries sustained during accidents are caused by individuals bracing for impact and that you should try to relax your body against that instinct.  (I credit my lack of injuries to following this little nugget of wisdom!)  As I started to go over the edge I just accepted that I no longer had any control over the situation and had to deal with whatever outcome lay ahead.  Then I quietly waited and listened to all of the commotion around me (crunching of icy snow, the scraping of metal, the cracking of the windshield...).  When all of the motion and noise stopped I opened my eyes, started breathing again and assessed the situation (a little difficult while hanging upside down). 

I am thrilled to say that at no time during the entire ordeal did I turn to God or prayer.  This tells me that I have truly succeeded in shedding the superstitions from my past and have moved forward to claim my life and my actions as completely my own.  It's a great feeling!

On a side note, I did gain a little faith that day as well - faith in humanity.  I still find myself teary eyed thinking of all of the people who risked their own lives that day to stop on an obviously icy highway to help out a stranger in need.  A very heart-felt thank you to all of the good samaritans out there.

You Know It's Kind of Hateful

The American Atheists recently put up a billboard by the Lincoln Tunnel.

My gut reactions to this sign were
1. I can think of far better uses for $20,000
2. I agree with the message
3.  It's kind of a slap in the face to Christians

The more I thought about it though, the more I came to accept this sign - like it even.  The intentions of the group were to reach out to non-believers and let them know that they are not alone during a season when we are bombarded with Christian and Jewish songs, imagery and stories.  The message in the ad is blunt, but valid.  It's a message that even a lot of Christians would agree with.  At least in my area of North America, the majority of the the Christians I come in contact with don't believe the stories of the bible are literal, but more along the lines of symbolic allegories.

I even got over the amount of money spent on the sign since, due to the controversy surrounding it, they raised $65,000 in donations.  Pretty good return on investment.

And the controversy itself got people talking openly about beliefs which I always think is beneficial.  The more people realize that not everyone thinks the same, the more they will re-evaluate their own beliefs.  I'm always happy when people think critically, regardless of the outcome.

So, end of story, right?  Nope.

The American Atheists have put up a new billboard advertising their January meeting in Alabama.

Now, having lived in Alabama for a time, I'm really glad that an atheist group is making itself known in the area.  I wasn't actually an atheist when I lived there, but it would have been nice to know some people whose first question upon meeting me wasn't "What church do you go to?".  I'm sure many others felt the same way, but you kept those thoughts to yourself.

Alabama is very different from where I live now.  Based on the people I met while there, the bible is taken quite literally by a very large portion of the population.  Those who don't take it as 100% fact, still feel very strongly about it.  So any atheist billboard in Alabama would be controversial and that's okay - controversy opens the dialogue.

But here's what they put up:

Scams?  Really?  Seriously?  This isn't a slap in the face.  This is hitting them with a Mack truck! 

Now, over the years I have become an atheist through and through.  I don't like religious institutions, what they stand for and the untruths* they tell.  However, scam is a very strong and hateful word.  It implies that those running the churches are knowingly deceiving people - that they don't believe in what they're selling.  This is certainly true in some cases, but hardly across the board.  The implication itself could be considered libelous.  I sure hope that the American Atheists don't have to spend all of those generous donations on a court case. 

* Defined as "the condition of being false".  I use that word instead of "lies" because, while I believe that the stories told in houses of worship are untrue, to call them "lies" would be to imply that the story tellers also believe them to be untrue and would therefore be knowingly deceiving the audience.

Car vs Bicyclist

I almost hit a woman with my car tonight.  I was pulling out of the parking lot and had stopped to wait for the oncoming traffic before turning right.  Just as I started to pull out I saw a woman riding a bike on the sidewalk to me right.  I had to stomp on the brakes and then back up so she could pass.

My initial reaction was horror and guilt for my appalling error.  As I drove on I changed my attitude.

First of all - the legality of the situation.  She was on a bicycle and was therefore considered a vehicle, not a pedestrian.  As a vehicle, she should have been on the other side of the road and, as a vehicle, she shouldn't have been on the sidewalk.

Second - the safety of the situation.  It was a dark, cloudy, misty night.  She was wearing dark pants, a dark jacket and a dark helmet.  She did have a small red safety blinker on her helmet (which is what caught my eye), but it was hardly sufficient to compensate for the dark clothing.

So while I would still have felt horrible had I hit her and hurt her, I certainly wouldn't feel "at fault".  I do hope she made it home safely.  I also hope she has learned to be more visible in the future.

Remembrance Day

Yesterday was Remembrance Day in Canada.  The day commemorates the end of World War I at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918.  On November 11th we are supposed to honour all of the soldiers who gave their lives in times of war.

I drop out of society every year on Remembrance Day because I hate it.  Before you judge me as cold hearted, please hear me out.

First of all, my grandfather fought in WWII.  He was one of the lucky ones who came home alive.  We have no idea what happened while he was fighting because he never spoke about it up to the day he died.  It's obvious to me that he didn't want to remember.  My hubby's grandfather also fought in WWII and was a POW for a large portion of the war.  He was also lucky to make it home alive.  He does talk about it and the things he tells us are atrocious.  I love both of these men intensely and I honour them, not for their forced war efforts, but for the men that were/are. 

I have quite a few relatives who have voluntarily joined the military.  I respect their choices as I respect them.  I don't really know what any of them have done in this capacity because I don't ask.  It terrifies me to think that these men would put themselves in harms way and even worse that they would be willing to take the life of another human being without even knowing their name. 

Now we're getting more into the reason that I hate Remembrance Day.  It all began with public school assemblies.  Every year we would be herded into the gymnasium, all wearing our red poppies, where someone would recite "In Flanders Fields" and someone would play "Reveille" either live or via recording and we would sit still for 2 minutes of silence.  If it had stopped there, I probably wouldn't feel the way I do today, but it didn't.  There were also films.  Some were just people talking or watered down animated shorts.  I remember one stop-motion short where the toys in a toy store window start a war with each other.  It was a fairly creative approach for younger kids to show the destruction of war.  But once again, they didn't stop there.  They also showed what must have been news reels from war time in which actual men were killed by guns and landmines.  I vividly remember the men being hit and slumping to the ground or being thrown by the mine explosions, all while other men ran past them with their guns intent on killing someone else.  From the age of 6, every frakking year they made me watch men kill each other.  Is it any wonder I have been traumatized?  Once I hit high school, where the walk to the auditorium was no longer supervised, I began disappearing before the assemblies.  Thus began my annual disappearance.

The messages that I got from these assemblies seemed mixed up to me.  War is horrible - Yes, I can agree with that, absolutely.  War is necessary - I still can't buy into that.  Killing people and dying for your country is worthy of honour - This is another one I have trouble with.  For one thing it glorifies killing people you don't even know.  For most of the wars in our past, the vast majority of our soldiers were drafted, meaning that they didn't necessarily want to fight or even believe in the cause.  It was a case of get out there and kill strangers or face the consequences.  If that was the case here, where we place such high value on "freedom", then I think it's safe to say that it was the same or worse for the other side.  Which makes me wonder how many people killed and/or were killed who didn't even believe in what they were killing over. 

Remembering obviously isn't doing the trick since we are still sending men and women out to war zones.  If the grown ups of the world can't figure this out, then how will we ever be done with war?  I, for one, will continue my November disappearing act until war is only something to be remembered.

Election Time!

Tomorrow is municipal election time in my neck of the woods.  Time to vote for the next Mayor, Councillor, School Board Trustees and Regional Chair. 

My politics teacher in high school instilled in me the importance of voting - that it was our civic duty and that we couldn't complain about our government if we didn't speak up at election time.  He also taught me that it wasn't enough to just go through the motions - You need to know who and what you're voting for.

So for the last couple weeks I have been brushing up on my knowledge of these political posts as well as reading everything I can find about the various candidates.  I want to know what they believe in, what they stand for and why they think they deserve my vote.  The internet has made this so much easier than in the past when I had to rely on the newspaper and possibly a televised debate (providing I was available at the time or remembered to set the VCR!)  The typical candidate now has a website (and often a Facebook page) where they tell you everything you need to know.  Some are bare basics while others are a masterpiece of marketing.

When I head to the polls tomorrow, I'll feel confident that I'm voting for those who I believe are the best candidates for the jobs.  I hope that many others will have that same feeling when it's time for them to vote.  And for those who don't want to take the time to educate themselves in time for an election, I offer this advice - Please stay home.

Religious Hypocrite of the Day - US Army Chaplain Lt Col William McCoy

The hubby and I recently received some chastising from a Christian friend for allowing the bad behaviour of a few in the religious community to tarnish our view of the whole flock.  The hubby wisely countered that "When an organization touts moral authority, it opens itself to scrutiny." 

The problem I see with my friend's argument is that it seems to be the other way around.  I have met very few religious people who actually practice what they preach.  The above mentioned friend is absolutely one of them.  From what I've seen, she lives every moment of her life as a testament to her beliefs.  While I strongly disagree with those beliefs, I can still be impressed by her ability to walk the talk.

But back to the bad apples.  I've lived, gone to school and worked in various environments.  I've also attended a variety of houses of worship.  This has all brought me into direct contact with a lot of people in the religious community.  And I've read the news from around the world which has allowed indirect knowledge of many more.  Very few of them follow the rules as laid out by their own deity.  Some are, in my eyes, minor transgressions such as little white lies.  Others are to the opposite extreme and include pedophilia.  Then there's everything in between.  Sometimes it's things that I have no personal issue with (ie sex before marriage), but are still considered to be sinful under the individual's supposed religious beliefs.

This brings me to US Army Chaplain Lt Col William McCoy.  This gentleman is not only a religious leader (Chaplain), he is also the author of "Under Orders: A Spiritual Handbook for Military Personnel" in which he provides spiritual guidance for those in the armed services.  This book was endorsed for all military members by Gen Patraeus.

It turns out that Lt Col McCoy and his wife also have a very adventuresome sex life including swinging, threesomes, naked photos posted online, voyeurism, cybersex and masturbation (apparently he wasn't listening to Christine O'Donnell!).  To be perfectly clear, I have no moral objections to anything in this list, but Lt Col McCoy's god DOES. 

How dare he claim to be a spiritual and moral authority while at the same time defying so many of the covenants touted by his god?!?!?!?!

Canadian Blood Services Needs Type O Neg Blood

I received this email today from Canadian Blood Services:

I am writing to ask for your help.

You are one of only 7% of Canadians with O Negative blood. You are part of a select group whose donations are compatible with all blood types; you hold the title of universal donor.

In an emergency situation, such as a car accident, your blood can be given to patients in need when there is no time to check their blood type. For this reason, we need O Negative donations more than any other right now so we are asking you to help us find others that share your blood type.

Chances are that other members of your family have type O Negative blood as well. Please encourage them to call 1 888 2 DONATE (1-888-236-6283) and book an appointment today. If they are unaware of their blood type, this will be determined when they donate.

It may be that you will be in need of blood yourself someday, and type O recipients can only receive type O blood. By encouraging other family members who share your blood type to start donating, you can help ensure we have a healthy supply of O Negative blood now and into the future.

On behalf of patients in need, thank you for your support.

Sincerely,

Dr. Graham Sher
Chief Executive Officer

I try to make a blood donation every 2 months.  My next trip is in a couple weeks.  All it takes is a little time out of my schedule.  One donation has the potential to save 3 lives and they thank me with cookies.  How awesome is that?

So I want to encourage anyone and everyone who is reading this and able, to call your local blood services and make an appointment to donate.  Don't stop there.  Spread the word and encourage others to do the same.  Maybe we could even arrange some blood drives at our places of work. 

The last time I went there was a man there making his 200th donation!!!  If he had never missed a donation opportunity (every 63 days) that would still have taken 34.5 years!!!!  Let's try to get more people working towards the 200 club.  We'll take it one cookie at a time!