Battle of the Sexes - Cheating and Essay Writing

By Greg Lancaster

Is there a difference between men and women when it comes to their motivations for cheating?

[And by cheating we are talking about cheating in school, hiring an essay writing service, using cheat notes in class, etc. For once we are not talking about relationships and cheating on your wife/husband.]

There is more and more pressure in school to be the best in university and college. Students are using more alternative (otherwise known as academically dishonest) resources to get that elusive grade because of that pressure. You hear of people getting access to tests from former students or people who get someone else to write their essay for them at major universities - especially in bigger cities like Toronto and NYC. The companies that promote their essay writing services focus on the biggest cities the most.

Now, of course, strictly speaking these methods are not in keeping with academic honesty, which usually states that the work you hand in is the work you created with your own hands and thoughts. So if you get someone else to give you information that you should not have or you get someone to write or help you write something that you should have written yourself in order to the upper hand you are effectively "cheating". So essentially, what people are doing is not in keeping with the spirit of pursuing academic endeavours - and not really learning anything either.

However for our purposes does we have to ask the question, do motivations for cheating differ for men and women?

If we look at studies we start to get an impression of what students think about cheating and what contributes to their motives for cheating. In one study, that looked at over 500 students in 3 different universities in the United States of America, researchers found that the students were much more accepting of cheating behaviour as a whole than the faculty expected them to be. The study focused on student in business related studies (accounting, management, marketing, etc...) and found that they were sometimes unaware that a certain behaviour was cheating behaviour (or so they said), unaccepting that it was cheating behaviour or uncaring that it was cheating behaviour.

In general, people feel that men are more likely to cheat than women. Women are seen as the fairer sex and that they are nurturing and caring. It is hard to imagine your loving and caring mother as that massively unethical cheating person because it just goes against what our image of mothers are. Men on the other hand are seen as aggressive and powerful so cheating behaviour is a little more naturally ascribed to them. The dichotomy is also seen when our perception of how men and women behave in relation to cheating does not meet our expectation. If women are found to be cheaters we tend to reprimand them more harshly than we would a man.

According to essay writing companies, approx. 80% of their clients are women. (And not just once, many of them come back for multiple essays, assignments, research papers, or even dissertations.)

Academic literature starts to confirm the common sense that we were discussing above in terms of the conditions that allow men and women to cheat. Academic literature also looked at correlation between cheating behaviour and men and cheating behaviour in women. It is already known that men are more likely to take risks than women (insurance companies use that fact to justify higher insurance rates for men). Women, on the other hand, are taught to believe that the impression they leave with others is a very important thing so they should do their best to preserve positive impressions and dispel negative impressions (this is basically the plot of the Scarlet Letter and the reason why young girls are taught to close their legs at all times). But given the right set of circumstances (including a small possibility of being caught or a possible excuse that could preserve one's positive impressions) women would feel able to cheat.

And not just able, but also feel like they are under pressure to cheat because they are under more pressure to do well in school than men are.

if we look at who cheats more another study collected data from many other studies sheds a little like. It found that 21% of women and 26% of men reported having cheated (again, academics - not relationships). When an extremely large sample was removed the numbers increased dramatically to 60% for both men and women.

Combine that with what essay writing companies say about how 80% of their clients being women and we must conclude that men and women cheat in different ways. Women are apparently cheating on essays more, whereas men must be cheating on tests or other methods of cheating more.

So, it seems clear that there really is no difference between men and women in terms of likelihood of cheating as there is mostly there is no difference or no major differences in percentages - the only big differences is the methods men and women employ to cheat.

The other significant factor is how socialization affects why a person cheats. Socialization dictates that factors that contribute to whether a person will take the risk at all. Men do it because they are socialized to be riskier and women do it if they think that people's impression of them could be diminished if they don't score better grades.

Cheating is ubiquitous in the world. I am sure that few of us can say that we have never cheated before. But maybe we should not blame ourselves perhaps it was just the way we were brought up... a culture in which cheating on spouses is frowned upon, but people do it anyway.

And thus cheating on an essay is still frowned upon, but people do it anyway.

Idiots and Bigots at Work

Ever has an email argument with an idiotic bigot?

You know what I mean. The kind of uneducated right-wing bigot who is most likely a Nazi sympathizer.

Eg. Yesterday I had an argument with an American bigot who was complaining about Canada's laws prohibiting the publication of hate literature. Why? Because he apparently thinks racist writings are a good thing - as if you can't find lots of that online anyway.

I chalk that up to America's problems with the KKK - which despite being labeled an illegal terrorist group continue to pubish and distribute their beliefs freely.

Could you imagine if an Al-Qaeda sympathizer had been spreading hate literature in the USA after 9/11? That would have been a guaranteed arrest and thrown in Guantanamo.

But since the KKK is seen more as a bunch of idiot rednecks with the combined IQ of Sarah Palin the end result is that most people don't take them seriously. They're too much of a joke.

So terrorist group schmerrorist schmoup.

Its amazing the FBI / CIA / Homeland Security has never launched a large scale plan to arrest all the KKK leaders.

Or maybe not. They are after all, pretty ridiculous. The leader of the KKK uses the title "Grand Wizard". Which is to say that they use a title so nerdy that they sound like a bunch of LARPers...

Live Action RolePlayers. They dress up in costumes and play with padded swords.

So knowing that its very difficult to take them seriously.

Which is exactly what you should do the next time you get in an argument with an idiotic bigot - laugh at them.

And then block their email address so you don't waste any more time on morons.

Interesting Point - If you compare IQ testing scores for state by state averages, the states with the lowest IQ scores are also the states which spend the lowest amount of money on education - and they're home to the most rednecks. Proof that low education = ignorant idiots.

Stupid People at Work

ENVIRONMENT - Ever had an argument with a stupid person?

You know, the kind of people who ignore the laws of physics?

For this example I am referring to people who ignore the laws of thermodynamics... and in particular greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases trap heat inside the earth's atmosphere. Its a proven fact.

Its a bit like ignoring other laws of physics... like gravity! Laws of motion, acceleration, relativity, quantum laws, electromagnetic laws, etc.

Thus when arguing with a stupid person who refuses to acknowledge the laws of thermodynamics and how greenhouse gases can be a frustrating task. The stupid person you are arguing with lacks the basic knowledge to make a coherent argument. Instead they use half logic, make up numbers, use information that is besides the point.

I recently had an argument with a deranged man named Willie McDonald from Houston, Texas. He kept fussing and claiming sun irradiation was the cause of global warming. He used made up numbers and links to conspiracy theory websites.

Sun irradiation (heat) has gone up 0.05% per decade since 1980 during quiet sunspot activity. So approximately 0.15%. The heat from the sun does fluctuate from time to time, but 0.15% is not enough to explain the temperature increases and global warming on Earth. Its too small a number. (Note, this increase is only a measurement during quiet sunspot activity... and thus is besides the point and further made irrelevant when you consider that the Earth's atmosphere both deflects and traps heat.)

Especially when you ignore how greenhouse gases work.

The Earth absorbs heat from the sun, yes, but the Earth also gives off heat back into space. The amount of heat given off into space depends on the percentage of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere.

The Earth's atmosphere also reflects heat. Thus the Earth's contained heat remains a relative constant, and the Earth's atmosphere is the single biggest contributor to global warming.

Greenhouse gases work like insulation. Once the heat gets inside the Earth's atmosphere it becomes more difficult for heat to escape. If you fill a box with greenhouse gases and provide a heat source, the box will heat up easily. If you fill it up with regular air, the box will still heat up, but it will give off heat more.

The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. How well these trap heat are even measurable. See the IPCC list of greenhouse gases for more details.

And so forth...

Try explaining all this to a stupid person (especially a conspiracy theorist) who refuses to admit that the Laws of Physics are called LAWS for a reason.

I blame the education system in North America. In this particular case, the man Willie McDonald from Texas has been failed by whatever passes for "science" in Texas high schools.

Worse, these uneducated morons cloud up poorly researched journalism and TV programs with their theories about the 'real cause of global warming', or worse, they deny that global warming and climate change are even happening.

It makes me wonder if and when the worst effects of climate change comes to pass what society will do with these morons. I think they will likely either learn to shut their mouths and follow sheepishly along, or somebody else will shut it for them...

Why? Because if the worst does come to pass we're talking about rising sea levels, flooded coastal cities, droughts, desertification of the wheat belt, shortages of food and clean water, wars over food and resources. By that time the patience of people will be worn thin. Naysayer politicians will be beaten bloody in the streets by angry hordes and the non-famous naysayers will suddenly lose their tongues.

I think there will come a time when the effects of climate change become so dire that people will have lost their patience with leaders, oil executives and the coal industry. There will be no more room for arguments about the effects of climate change and what is causing it. The effects will be violent and bloody.

Why will it be bloody? Because stupid people don't have the patience to learn from their mistakes. They answer with action.

The social effects of climate change in the USA will be like watching a Jerry Springer episode. Stupid people killing other stupid people.

The smart people, like Noah and his Ark, will have foreseen what is coming and all moved further inland and found arable land unaffected by climate change or rising sea levels.

FYI: Land in Detroit is really cheap right now.

Disciplining your Kids at Work (Part II)

See the older post: Disciplining your Kids at Work to learn more about physical discipline (ie. spanking, ear tugging, etc).

Now regardless of whether you believe in physical discipline (I firmly believe that as a child I needed it and I am thankful my parents used ear tugging and spankings at an early age to get their point across that tomfoolery will not go unpunished).

However at a certain age these kinds of punishments don't work any more. This is something every parent knows.

Thus begins a period of "being grounded", being denied dessert after dinner, not being allowed to watch TV, play on the computer, no talking on the phone, etc. At least these were the punishments I was familiar with being grounded during the 1980s and 1990s.

These days being grounded means being sent to their room where many kids now have their own TV, laptop, cell phone, so "being grounded" isn't really much of a punishment unless the parents also take away those electronic devices. I would argue however that the cell phone is an emergency device and should never be taken away. (But you might start handing the bill to the teenager and let them pay for it so they learn to cut back on their rampant usage.)

I remember once wracking up a huge $1,500 phone bill back in August 1997. Thankfully I was working and could pay for it, but in retrospect that money could have been spent on something else. I learned to discipline my phone usage after that incident.

The thing is self-discipline is a rare thing amongst children. Most children will simply run amok (like the kids in Lord of the Flies) if there is no one to tell them what they can and cannot do.

Case in point.

When I was 14 there was an incident at a gathering of neighbours outside the old Salem School and Church. It was basically a community BBQ and I noticed a bunch of kids bullying another kid, running around hitting each other with sticks. So being one of the older (and therefore more responsible) kids I took their sticks away and threw them over the fence.

Two of the boys went to complain to their father, claiming I had bullied them and/or hit them. The father came over to talk to me, telling me to leave his kids alone and threatening me. (I don't remember the exact words, it was 18 years ago.)

"All I did was take their sticks away and throw them over the fence. If you would discipline your kids this wouldn't be a problem."

At which point he threatened me some more and claimed his kids were perfectly disciplined.

To which I believe my response was "Bullshit. You're not even watching them." and basically berated him about the finer points of discipline, a fact which no doubt embarrassed him in front of his neighbours and he realized there was nothing he could do about it so he made one last threat and stormed away.

And THIS is why people should discipline their kids (whatever your methodology, providing its legal), so that your kids don't embarrass you in public, run amok beating up other kids, burning down churches and/or eventually becoming mass murderers. (Everyone blames the parents when the mass murderer strikes. Sometimes the mass murderer also kills their parents.)

Children should be encouraged to enjoy sports, express their creativity, to read, to show off their ability to learn and their intellect... and discouraged from bad behaviour which will cause trouble and mayhem both in the present and the future.

A neglectful parent is not a proper parent at all. Parenting requires you to actually pay attention to your children. Not paying attention and you reap the consequences.

Tattoos at Work

ART - Men and women who choose to get tattoos, piercings or any kind of noticeable body art are really wreaking havoc with their future career.

True, it may not hurt celebrities of the world like David Beckham (shown here), because their careers are already successful.

But for those people who are young and struggling in their careers having a large neck tattoo, a jungle of piercings, or a virtual art gallery on their body will find it difficult to find work.

Women I think can get away with this more. Women have a tendency to be more discreet about where they get their tattoos or piercings. Plus psychologically speaking employers are more likely to look the other way if a female has a tattoo whereas for men tattoos are associated with bad behaviour.

Lets take the South Korean military as an example. Military service for men in South Korea is mandatory. But there is ways to get out of it. One of the ways is to get a tattoo. The South Korean military believes that men with tattoos are unruly and won't follow orders, and therefore won't allow them into the military. (Which is the complete opposite of the United States military where tattoos of their units are welcomed.)

If you are a parent you have probably given your kids plenty of advice about how to get and keep a job. Not having tattoos or piercings was probably amongst your suggestions.

According to a recent study conducted by Career Builder applicants who do not follow proper job etiquette are hurting their chances - even if they are a good fit for the position.

Whether a candidate is seeking a new job or a promotion, a professional image can make a difference. According to managers who were surveyed they said the following personal attributes would make them less likely to extend a promotion include:

• Piercings
• Bad breath
• Visible tattoos
• Often have wrinkled clothes
• Messy hair
• Dresses too casually
• Too much perfume or cologne
• Too much make up
• Messy office or cubicle

Of course this really depends on the nature of the workplace. Well hidden piercings and tattoos are fairly main stream in cities these days. However there is never an excuse for poor personal hygiene unless you're a garbage collector.

Over 20% of hiring managers also said they are less likely to hire a candidate who didn’t send a post-interview thank you note. That’s because they say omitting this step shows a lack of follow through and sends a message that the applicant is not really serious about the opportunity. (We should note many young people don't even know about this unspoken rule.)

A hand written note is still the gold standard, but most managers are perfectly happy to get an emailed thank you from interested applicants. If there were multiple interviewers, each interviewer should get a personal note.

It makes you realize the number of unspoken rules the workplace these days has.

The whole thank you note thing may seem repetitive, but enthusiasm for the job is a key component for hiring people. It is also your last chance to boost your chances. (Especially if other applicants send a thank you note and you did not.)

Another big thing HR staff now check is Facebook and Google your name. Its a good idea to clean up your online reputation so that when they do take these steps they are seeing the best possible side of you.

ie. You probably won't want them seeing photos of you on a website involving "drunk people with tattoos" or any other poor behaviour.

There's even a case of a man who legally changed his name because of his old profession and bad reputation online. He now has kids and wanted 2 things: Employers to see the new him; His children to only know about the new him as well, as opposed to the old version which was very risque film work and involved his private member diving repeatedly into the dark spot between the legs of multiple women. (*cough cough*)

The end result is that men and women need to be more discreet about where they are getting tattoos and piercings if they want to have any kind of serious business career.

The same rule applies when applying to an university, running for political office, or even wanting to become a clergy member.

Tattoos, like all other forms of art, are subjective and not everyone likes particular styles of art.

Its a bit like picking out corporate art for your office. Do you pick a piece of abstract art, a landscape or a figurative nude? Probably best to go with an abstract or landscape piece just so you don't accidentally offend or distract clients.

Male and Female Drivers at Work

CARS - Who is the best drivers? Male drivers or female drivers?

I don't think there is any difference between male and female drivers... some people are just aggressive, stupid, timid and so forth... and none of these things makes a person "a good driver".

But there is a huge difference between countries. Americans are not as good as think. Asian drivers are actually much better than people give them credit for (better than American drivers)... but nothing beats the Finns.

Finland has the best drivers in the world. Not just on the road, but on the racetrack too. Finland has a very low car accident rate per capita, and they're very good in race cars too (If you want to win, you hire a Finn!). The reason? Finland trains their drivers from a younger age and they are really more aggressive in their training methodology. See the video below and see what I mean.

Check out these videos about Finnish drivers:



Oh and while we are at it, here is the world's worst driver. A Dutchman named Pim from a reality TV show ended up hitting the acceletator when he was supposed to be stepping on the brakes. He ended up hitting the host of the TV show.

Gender Studies at Work

FEMINISM - Back in university I took a course titled "Male and Female Relationships"... It was really more of a literature course in which we analyzed how men and women interact with one another, and not just on a biochemical level as per sex / love (much to the disappointment of several people in the class on the first day who evidently did not read the course description). but also dealt with issues of motherhood / fatherhood, how children relate to their parents, how siblings relate to each other, how male / female co-workers get along, bosses, authority figures, etc, etc.

The course was my first taste of what a gender studies course was all about. In the years that followed I took many other courses on similar topics, including Psychology of Women, Male and Female Archetypes, and so forth. I basically minored in gender studies, which at the time was often known as women's studies, a misnomer because we spent half the class time talking about men too.

That last bit is an important part of the whole gender studies phenomenon. As a series of courses they really don't contribute anything to the global economy... but they do allow people to study something which effects how people interact with each on a social level.

Knowing the gender/sex of an individual is the first thing people do when they meet someone new. They look at their chest, their face and try to determine which sex they are. Once this is done they also assess how feminine or masculine a person is.

If the first is confusing (ie. the person has facial hair and yet has breasts) then we get confused and wonder what exactly is this person standing before us. Are they like the bearded lady from the circus? Are they a really butch woman? Are they a man who looks feminine and has hormonal problems? Are they a transsexual? If a person can't tell they get confused and distracted, trying to determine what exactly they are looking at.

In the end it might just be a tomboy who has some whiskers. Hopefully they don't notice you staring and trying to figure out the conundrum.

In Toronto there was recently a couple who decided they were going to raise their baby "genderless", meaning they would treat it the same regardless of whether it was a boy or a girl. This was later reported on in the local media and it became a bit of a fuss. (The kid is obviously a boy, but the parents were refusing to admit it.)

Now because he was so obviously a boy all the neighbours were saying so, asking to see if they were correct. There was even polls to gauge public opinion. A bit too much fuss if you ask me.

When the boy eventually reaches kindergarten he will already have identified himself as male. He will be prone to playing with others boys (because girls are icky, dontcha know?) and doing activities that boys want to do. Its a natural process of self identification.

Identity is very meaningful to the individual. People define themselves with words, saying things like "I am a doctor" or "I am an amateur race car driver" or "I am a father of three", and so forth.

For example, I am an artist, writer, author, website designer, painter, sculptor, photographer, athlete, bicycle mechanic, weightlifter, archer, cyclist, amateur boxer, zen guru, Lilith expert, SEO expert, linguist, poly-lingual, long haired, glasses wearing, amateur guitarist, CEO, entrepreneur, Dungeons & Dragons player, nerd, geek, health nut, eidetic genius, liberal-minded, practical, spendthrift, blatantly honest, Scottish-French-German-Hebrew-Prussian, straight, white male with a sense of humour.

But is this all that I am? No. I am also a body, blood, sweat, meat, fluids, organs, skin, hair and if you believe in any religion I am also a soul which is either going to heaven, hell, purgatory or being reincarnated after I die.

And even so, is this all of my identity? No, because I left things out... I am also a lover, a poet, a hopeless romantic and any number of other words that people might choose to describe me. ie. Some people might call me a self-righteous prick.

Recognizing that we define ourselves by our identity, gender studies is a topic that doesn't just deal with issues of relationships, androgyny, sexuality and so forth... it also deals with the topic of identity and how that is tied to our ego.

The macho male ego for example is a fragile one. Its built upon the idea of being "macho" and masculine at all times. If caught in a situation where the macho male looks weak or feminine, the macho response is to loudly proclaim that they aren't feminine, a sissy, a coward, gay, homosexual, metrosexual or whatever... and if loudly proclaiming it doesn't work, then they start a fight to prove what a 'big man' they are.

I'd argue it takes a bigger man to be humble and accept that we cannot always be macho. Especially if you're a parent.

As a parent there will be times when you need to change a baby's diapers, take the kid in a stroller to the park, and so forth. Not exactly macho activities at all.

But then again macho and married with children don't usually go that well together. Alpha males may be good at attracting women (especially dumb women), but they're not very good at keeping them around because they tend to be assholes.

Studying gender (as per gender studies or women's studies) is therefore highly useful. I'd also argue it takes a smarter man to realize these things and that getting in a fight isn't going to change anything. Fighting won't make your penis bigger.

But it might get you kicked in the balls.

In unrelated news.... Macho Man Randy Savage dies in car accident

Open Letter to Casandra Vasu

The following letter is something I wrote and sent to an old love interest from the 1990s. I spotted her recently on a social media website and thought I would give her a kick in the butt. I admit I kind of rub her face it and act like a bit of a dick to her in the letter, but its with the purpose of provoking her into changing her life. See if it would inspire her to get her life in order and actually do something with it.

Hey Casi!

Wow, you look really old!

Time has not been kind to you...

I still get asked for ID when buying booze, go figure. I chalk it up to healthy eating, cycling, yoga and weightlifting. In the last year I've also taken up archery, boxing and mountain climbing just to keep things interesting.

In other news I just found out that my artwork is now taught in several art history courses.

Its rather unnerving the amount of attention I get... fan letters, that sort of thing. Plus my paintings have been in 3 documentaries so far and I am getting commissions from TV shows. That part I cannot complain about.

I miss our old banter. The sad part about the whole you-me story is that I went on to do something with my life and you seemed to fall to pieces. Dropped out and off the radar.

Which is really sad because you had so much potential but you were always distracted, bragging about what you were instead of reaching for what you could be.

It would be nice to see you pick up the pieces of your life and actually do something with it. Something truly meaningful. I don't mean fame or money or anything else fleeting. I am talking about changing society around you to something more positive.

Maybe you have been doing that already, but its so low key its not even on the radar. Its good to be humble. Being unnerved by my fame is a good thing I suppose. It keeps me humble but I can still brag about my accomplishments right? There is nothing wrong with being proud of my career.

But what I want to do is so much more. I don't want my painting "United States Censorship" to be an one hit wonder. Its not even that good of a painting, I am the first to admit that. For starters its only on a large piece of paper. More of a sketch than a painting. I want to make many more paintings in the future, paintings which inspire thought and change. I think that is why my paintings are now being talked about in art history classes, because they do that.

To me it is sad to see an old friend, man or woman, relegated to the sidelines of life. Especially when they could have done so much more with their life.

Hope you are well and happy!

Sincerely,
Charles Moffat

Disciplining Your Kids at Work

HEALTH - I've put this under "health" because frankly good discipline is a mental health issue, plus knowing how to properly discipline your children without hurting them is certainly a health matter too.

There is essentially 5 levels of how to discipline your children. Some of them are more controversial than others, and the bottom two are basically illegal.

1. Minimalist / Anti-Discipline

Some parents don't like to discipline their children. They basically let their children run wild and only attempt to discipline them when they do something really bad. The problem with these parents is they've adopted a pacifist approach to discipline, so their methodology is things like "no dessert", "go stand in the corner", "no TV", "no computer", "no phone or cellphone", etc. Another problem these parents face however is children who cry, whine and act up until they get what they want. Such parents have a strong tendency to flip flop and renege on their punishment... sometimes even REWARDING bad behaviour by later offering to buy the kid a new toy just to get them to stop crying.

2. Pro-Discipline

These parents are no nonsense when it comes to discipline. They punish their kids, ground them, take things/privileges away and they refuse to back down on the issue. Their results may vary depending on the parent and the methodology, but at least they're not being wishy-washing and then rewarding the kid for bad behaviour.

3. Pro-Spanking & Ear Tugging

Spanking or ear tugging your child is perfectly legal. The exact wording of local laws may vary (and this may not be allowed in certain European countries), but in North America all parents have the right to spank or tug the ears of their children when they misbehave. Brazil and several South American countries have also outlawed spanking. Spanking and ear-tugging causes no damage, only light bruising which fades very quickly. The biggest aspect of this form of punishment is that its more about humiliation and embarrassment. The child will be embarrassed by the spanking and will think twice before doing activities that might induce another embarrassment.

4. Legal Grey Zone

This could be anything really. "Cruel and unusual punishment" could for example be forcing the kid to apologize to all the neighbours they had wronged and atoning for their misdeeds. But it could also be forms of physical punishment / work which we normally don't think of... ie. Having to chop wood for the woodstove for 3 hours before being allowed to eat; 200+ pushups; etc... some of these get into areas which most people would consider to be abuse and parental neglect. Twisting a child's arm for example on purpose would be crossing the line.

5. Out Right Illegal

Beating up the child, starving them, forced isolation, serious physical harm and then covering up the injuries with stories of falling down the stairs, etc. It doesn't take a lawyer to figure out these are going overboard.

Conclusions: Now evidently options #2 and #3 are the best ones and parents might even use the "cruel and unusual punishment" part of #4 if the situation warrants an unusual punishment. ie. You probably won't spank your teenager, but you might confiscate their cellphone and cut off their internet for the whole summer when they're caught gambling online... combined with forcing them to help out at a homeless shelter until they realize the road gambling can sometimes lead to.

The end goal is not to enact revenge on your child, but to encourage them through positive and negative reinforcement that certain types of behaviour will not be tolerated especially as they get older. As parents we have a responsibility to discipline our children so they don't grow up and turn into psychos because of parental neglect. Children can get into all sorts of trouble if allowed to run amok, raising children who eventually as adults run amok is a sure sign that the parents failed in their duty to properly discipline their kids.

DISCLAIMER TO YUPPIES: You may think you're doing your child a favour by not disciplining them or "sparing the rod and spoiling the child", but in reality you are doing them and the rest of society a disservice by raising someone who will ultimately be spoiled rotten.

"Beware of the Homosexual" at Work

SEX - I saw the video below and I just had to re-post it on here. It was simply so outdated it was funny.



It really makes you realize just how far we've come in the last 60 years. In the 1950s homosexuality was considered a mental illness and the stuff of sexual predators looking for young boys... vs now where gay men and women are getting married, adopting kids, seeking equal rights. In some cases they're even running for political office.

If you're interested in finding more "sex education" or funny outdated videos on YouTube there are plenty of them.

What is REALLY funny is how some people (ie. Sarah Palin, Stephen Harper and similar politicians from the ultra-conservative Christian right wing) still believe in some of the outdated nonsense from that era.

Bullies at School (and at Work)

CANADA/HEALTH - According to a new study Canada has some of the worst bullies in the world. At least insofar as our schools are concerned. The study by Queen's University in conjunction with the World Health Organization documented both bullies and victims of bullies and the bullying methods used in 40 different countries.

Boys face homophobic slurs, insults, verbal and physical abuse, to say nothing of emotional trauma that will haunt their self confidence for years to come and in many cases leads to depression, suicide attempts and violent behaviour.

Girls are no less humiliated either, but methods girls use to bully each other differs slightly.

The victims of bullying (regardless of gender) often end up cutting themselves and contemplating / attempting suicide. They also tend to become more shy, despondent, develop phobias of school or meeting new people, their marks slide and they end up wholly traumatized by the experience.

Author's Note: Having been bullied myself I know these things to be true. I still get upset just thinking of past instances from my own high school years.

The problem in Canada is that many school administrators do several things:

#1. They think its a problem that will go away with time and that there will be no lasting harm.

#2. They think it would take too much effort to enact anti-bullying policies, or that such policies could make problems worse.

In the United States however bullying is taken VERY seriously. In a country that averages a mass school shooting every 3-4 months there is a constant effort to prevent or put a halt to bullying, for fear that "Your School could be the next Columbine".

In Canada this lack of support in the schools' administration results in bullies basically running the place, getting away "Scot-free" with whatever antics they feel like. This is the reason why Canada is ranked the 5th worst country for bullies in schools out of the 40 countries polled.

• 14% of Canadian boys report being physically bullied.
  
• 30% of Canadian boys report verbal / psychological bullying.

Currently the status quo for punishing bullies is to suspend the offending student for 1-3 days. Afterwards the bully returns and due to lack of teacher supervision the bullying frequently becomes worse. (So going back to point #2 above, yes, band-aid solutions do make the problem worse, but it doesn't mean there isn't a good solution.)

The province of Ontario (where approx. 33% of all Canadian school children live) has taken steps in recent years like the Safe Schools Act and a training program that has thus far trained 25,000 teachers and 7,000 principals in how to address/prevent bullying. And this week is "Bullying Awareness Week", something which many schools take part in.

But if you look at the statistics for bullying incidents you see the it hasn't dropped, but has remained relatively steady. Anti-bullying group PREVNet (Promoting Relationships and Eliminating Violence Network) says there is little evidence that above measures have done anything, once again its just a band-aid solution.

You have to wonder what this "training program" for teachers really involves. Its likely just a weekend where teachers gather, talk about different ways to deal with bullies, eat lunch together and get a stamped certificate at the end proving they were there. Afterwards they make up their own mind on how to deal with bullies instead of following any kind of protocol.

That is a key problem. The current protocol (or lack thereof) doesn't work because administrators/teachers are not investigating allegations of bullying and are instead preferring to sweep it under the rug and ignore it.

Here is a solution for you...

Make it a CRIME.

If 14% of Canadian boys are being physically bullied and abused, that is ASSAULT. It is already a crime as far as the law is concerned, the problem is that school administrators have a strong tendency to turn a blind eye to bullying and either give the bully a "slap on the wrist" or give a suspension (Woohoo, 1-3 days of no school!), which is hardly a punishment.

If it was treated as a crime and bullies received criminal records (and possibly time in juvenile hall or the threat of jail) then they would be more likely to be scared shitless of getting in trouble again. (After all, if you go to juvenile hall you frequently are no longer the bully, but become the victim. There's always someone who is bigger than you are.)

Now I admit treating bullying as a crime is a lot more time consuming, but so is trying to teach students who are traumatized. They're distracted and despondent, too stressed about the bullies in their life to worry about school work. The students who don't suffer from bullies inherently have better marks (and less sick days from trying to avoid a bully).

An effective solution to bullying will doubtlessly raise the grade average of students and result in happier and more productive students.

The countries polled with the least amount of bullies (Norway, Sweden and England) have strong policies in place and they are under constant evaluation for improvement. What we need in Canada therefore is to adopt identical policies and protocols and FOLLOW THEM. Don't ignore them at your leisure.

After all its not just students who were shot in the Columbine massacre, it was teachers too. For their own safety teachers need to be taking bullying more seriously.

And FYI, on a per capita basis Canada has had more school shooting fatalities than the USA. Remember the Killer Goth in Montreal in September 2006? Or the C. W. Jefferys Collegiate shooting in May 2007? Or the Bendale Business and Technical Institute shooting in September 2008? Apparently Canada averages a school shooting every year, which when you consider our population is one 10th of the USA's that is a pretty high rate.

Some People are just Dumb as Bricks

The following discussion applies equally to men and women:

When I was in high school I had a membership in a website in which, if you forgot your password, you could have your password resent to your email address.

Additionally, if you couldn't remember your login you could have that resent too.

I was discussing this marvel (such a new concept when the internet was young) with a friend in the library who couldn't remember his password when a passing moron (who apparently didn't have anything better to do and decided to listen in on our conversation). The moron had this to say:

"But that doesn't mean someone could break into your account if they just resent your login and your password?"

"No, it doesn't work that way."

"Yes it does. You just said you can get the login and password by resending them."

"But then how do you get into the person's email to retrieve them both?"

"Oh."

Hours later I got two emails, one containing my login and a second containing my password. The moron had apparently gone home, remembered my email address from listening to the discussion. He was apparently trying to get into my account but was too dumb as bricks to remember he also needed access to my email.

Days later I smacked him over the back of the head and told him off.

"Hey, don't do that. I'll tell the principal!"

"You mean the vice-principal. The principal doesn't deal with troublemakers. I am sure the VP would be interested to hear you've been trying to break into other people's personal stuff and that you're too dumb to figure out its not possible. At least not possible using the method you did."

"A hacker could do it!"

"Are you a hacker? No. Stop hanging around me loser."

Not the exact words of the conversation, but the general jist of it. Him and his friends tended to follow myself and my friends around. We were the seniors, they the juniors and apparently they had nothing better to do than emulate us older students.

I remembered he bugged me to play cards with him once, in an earlier incident, and he kept cheating because he didn't know the rules. Finally I decided to leave and go to class and swore I would never play cards (or anything else) with him ever again. So if you're wondering why I was rude to the moron its because he kept following us around.

Thinking back about that idiot I have to wonder if that he ever got into college or university. If he did it would be proof that entrance standards are shockingly low and that any moron can get in.

Judging from my two degrees and 6 years in university, yes, quite a few morons do get in.

I remember I was dating a girl in 3rd year of university and her roommate was a fashionista. She went to a fashion show and came back yapping on about how the models would strike a pose at the end of the catwalk and how "it was so avant-garde!"

What she actually meant to say was that it was a cliché, but she didn't know the difference between avant-garde and cliché.

cliché = its been done before so many times its considered lame.
avant-garde = its never been done before.

And neither I nor my girlfriend at the time bothered to explain the difference to her. We had both dealt with our share of morons before and trying to explain things to them was about as effective as banging your head against a wall.

You'd think someone would come up with some kind of test similar to SATs or an IQ test that would allow universities to screen out the rejects more thoroughly. Oh well, I guess some people just get in on money alone and some kind of semblance of good grades.

I think some teachers take pity on students and artificially raise their grades. It creates a series of lowered standards and eventually those students end up in universities where they are much more likely to drop out when they run into professors who DO NOT take pity on them.

Like the morons who hire other people to write their essays for them while they go out and party, smoke pot and snort cocaine. Its sad because these are the type of people who manage to weasel their way into powerful high paying jobs somehow. ie. George W. Bush or the executives that worked at Enron.

What is also sad is that Canada and the United States need to be training more scientists (engineers, physicists, chemists, biologists, doctors, the works!) in order to keep up with other countries internationally. Technology wise we are slipping in our ability to stay competitive.

That problem is two-fold:

#1. We seem to be letting too many morons study whatever they feel like.

#2. We have too many programs/fields that are interesting to the more nerdy people and cause them to enter a different field of expertise which is ultimately useless (ie. studying Klingon in university). Seriously, what is someone going to accomplish in life with a degree in Klingon? Impress Worf? Not bloody likely.

Would it be so hard to increase university standards so we make sure we're not wasting teaching time on people who frequently drop out anyway? Or cut funding to some of the programs which are draining our more technologically inclined?

And why does it cost extra to study engineering? That is a highly valuable skill and we always need more engineers. We should be lowering tuition costs to engineering programs to make it more affordable for the people who are faced with a dilemna: Klingon (or some equally useless degree) or Engineering? Well... Klingon is cheaper so I guess that will have to do...

Maybe there's something in the water that makes so many people in North America brain dead? Are we not testing the water for lead poisoning any more? Or is there just way too many people smoking pot and snorting coke (and then having kids) that our society is just going downhill quickly due to a combination of drugs and lack of education?

We need more discipline and vigilance when it comes to educating the leaders of tomorrow.