Category Archives: Rant

If you need me I'll be in the corner melting…

Posted on by

This week it seems that summer has reared up upon its back legs and screamed, “I am here!” At least that’s what I’m guess based on the eyeball-melting temperatures that are in this week’s forecast. Observe:

wtf

For instance, on my birthday (which is this coming Wednesday), it’s supposed to go up to a Humidex of 43C or 109F. What the hell is up with that? I was thinking I would celebrate my birthday with a nice birthday pie (much better than cake) but instead I might just spend the day hanging out in the freezer.

Can’t we just have nice, moderate weather up here? Does Canada really need to be a country of extremes when it comes to weather?

If anyone is looking to get me a birthday present, you could get me a personal cooling device or something similar. Or a giant bag of ice.

Vacation in Iqaluit?

So anyway, if you’re wondering where I am, I’m pretty easy to find since I’m frequently found lurking close to our only partly useful air conditioner.

*******

On the other hand, at least I have appropriate hot weather shoes – check out my NAOT review for killer sandals!

How to turn your daughters into tramps

Posted on by

I love to watch shows like Dancing With the Stars, and on occasion I will watch So You Think You Can Dance. I love movies that deal with cheerleading. Heck, at one time in my life I wished I was coordinated enough to be a cheerleader myself. I took ballet for almost a decade. While I won’t actively seek it out, I love to watch figure skating.

All of those things have several things in common: Athleticism, coordination, grace (well, not me in ballet, but in general grace, yes), and performance skills. They also have something else in common. They often feature itty bitty costumes. And I love those costumes.

However, there is a big difference between a teenage girl wearing a skimpy outfit or a grown woman on television dancing the tango in a dress so tiny it barely requires any fabric and a group of extremely young girls wearing very little clothing while gyrating wildly and inappropriately to Beyonce on a stage.

I love the song “Single Ladies” even though it’s annoying in the sense that it can get stuck in your head for days. I like the video because good lord Beyonce can dance (though I disagree with Kanye “Imma Let You Finish” West because I don’t think it was the “best video of all time”). I really enjoyed the “All the Single Babies” video that went around awhile back. What I do not love in any way whatsoever is this performance done by 7- or 8-year-old girls at some sort of dance recital or talent show.

It bears noting that each of these girls is a fantastic, spectacular dancer. However, if they’re all able to dance that well and learn that much choreography then someone could have taught them a more age-appropriate routine that would have been amazing. All this ends up being is a disturbingly creepy oversexed performance by little girls who should not be gyrating their hips like that.

I don’t know which bothers me more either – the dancing itself or the fact that people in the audience are hooting and hollering like they’re at some kind of burlesque show. No wait, I know what bothers me most, it’s the people in charge of putting the routine together and the parents who are perfectly okay with their daughters being up there like that. If the parents were unaware it’s one thing but surely they must have caught some bits and pieces of the performance while the kids were practicing it at home.

If I was in the audience and my kid was up there on that stage I guarantee I wouldn’t have been cheering. I would have been sitting there with my jaw on the floor and as soon as it was over my daughter would have been yanked out of that dance class in order to find a more appropriate one.

Somewhere out there I’ll bet that Beyonce is shaking her head thinking, “that’s just not right” and Noah Cyrus is thinking, “AWESOME, I have to get that one down!”

When are people going to let little girls just BE little girls again?

God forbid we ever let kids just be kids

Posted on by

I have two girls, as you already know if this isn’t your first time reading here. They are four and seven and they play with dolls and dinosaurs, blocks and puppets, and they love the cartoons on Playhouse Disney. Every once in awhile my seven-year-old says or does something that is a clear reminder she’s in school and influenced by those who are older than she is; sometimes my four-year-old says or does something that she’s learned from a sister who is three years older than she is.

Overall though, my girls are girls. They aren’t acting like tweens or teen or tiny little adults. They’re girls, they’re kids, they’re children.

But GOD FORBID the world should ever let kids be kids. And as soon as I type and post this I think I’m going to talk my oldest into taking down the one remaining Miley Cyrus / Hannah Montana poster she has up in her room and replacing it with something else. Because at this point I don’t think I want anything in our home that is in any way, shape, or form related to the name “Cyrus”.

Aside from doing that, I wish I could go grab Miley’s parents by the shoulders and give each of them a good shake while shrieking, “Billy Ray! Tish! LOOK AT WHAT YOU ARE DOING YOU MORONS!”

No, this time it’s not about Miley. Miley’s kind of off my radar ever since her pole dancing at the VMAs and when I saw her at the Grammys she was dressed pretty appropriately for her age instead of an oversexed 16-year-old made to look like she’s 25.

It’s her sister, Noah. Who is NINE. Noah has already been seen on video doing pole dancing of her own (her sister does it, so it must be cool!). She’s also been seen on YouTube singing “Smack That” while slapping her own ass. Did I mention she’s nine?

Anyway, as if that weren’t all appalling enough, Noah and her equally young friend Erica are going to promote and model for a children’s lingerie line.

Can you let that sink in for a second? A lingerie line. Designed for kids. KIDS IN LINGERIE. Pardon my potty mouth but what the fuck? Who EVER sat in a board meeting and uttered the words, “A line of lingerie designed for pre-pubescent girls, that sounds awesome!”?

The Emily Grace Collection is described as such:

“ [The line has a] trendy, sweet, yet edgy feel, reminiscent of Emily’s true personality. She is collaborating with Ooh! La, La! Couture designers to create versatile styles that can be worn with sweet ballerina slippers, funky sneakers or paired with lace stockings and boots for more of a rock and roll look. Emily’s collection will appeal not just to little girls – the line also has an exclusive Teen Collection available to a size 14.”

Lace stockings and boots? For kids? REALLY?

Check this out, this is Emily and Noah talking to Noah about the line:

LOVE that Emily is wearing fishnets and leopard print. Because that totally screams “little girl” except not. I’ve seen someone wearing leopard print dresses with fishnets before. She was standing on a corner outside Burger King waiting for some guy named “John” if you get what I’m saying and I think you do.

Why do we live in a world where people think it’s okay to make thongs and lingerie for kids and reward little girls for acting like they’re 20 years old? Why are there shows about creating some sort of phony “perfect” pageant girl? It’s not funny, it’s not cute, it’s not charming. It’s disgusting and dangerous and immoral.

I can’t wait until school lets out this afternoon so I can sit on the floor with my kids and put on a puppet show. You know, things that kids are supposed to do.

Does the Canadian Medical Association support the use of Roofies too?

Posted on by

Imagine you’re in a bar or out on a date and you’re enjoying a drink with that cute guy you’ve been chatting up and then all of a sudden you get a bit fuzzy. You pass out and later you wake up in a strange bed with your clothes on the floor and although you have no clear memories you realize that you’ve very obviously been violated.

That’s called date rape.

Now imagine you’re in a hospital and you’re knocked out under general anesthesia so that your doctor can perform a routine surgery on you. You then wake up with no clear memories but later you read an article that says that if you were in a Canadian teaching hospital you may very well have undergone an unnecessary pelvic exam by a medical student or perhaps even *numerous* medical students.

That’s called acceptable by the Canadian Medical Association.

Really? That’s acceptable, to allow medical students to poke around in an unconscious woman’s va-jay-jay without permission? I guess acceptable is one word for it, but I prefer two words: Fucked Up.

This article in the Globe and Mail says this:

The long-standing argument in favour of allowing these exams to be done on surgery patients is that it provides a unique opportunity for students to practice the delicate, invasive examination without causing the woman pain or embarrassment.

A pelvic exam without pain or embarrassment? Okay, fine. I think most people would prefer a small and brief amount of pain and discomfort over the thought of not finding out something is wrong until it’s too late. As for embarrassment, well, I’m not someone who jumps for joy over the idea of a pelvic exam but I wouldn’t say I’m embarrassed either. However, I know some women are, so yes having a pelvic exam while you’re out cold would indeed save on both the pain and potential embarrassment.

But WITH consent! Except, the article goes on to say this:

There is also an assumption that women would never accept pelvic exams by students while conscious so sneaking them in, while not ideal, is acceptable.

I… God. I am almost at a loss for words except no, it’s more like I have too many words that want to get out at the same time and all of them would make a sailor blush. SNEAKING a pelvic exam on someone because you ASSUME that the woman in question WOULD SAY NO is what the CMA calls ACCEPTABLE?

Pardon my abuse of the caps lock and my upcoming profanity but what in the fuck is wrong with this picture? You know, really, imagine a guy saying, “I assume that woman won’t sleep with me so I’ll dump this Roofie in her wine and I’ll just SNEAK IT IN. It’s not ideal but it’s acceptable.”

Maybe the difference in those two scenarios is that some of the people wear white coats and surgical masks and gloves, I don’t know.

I gave birth in a teaching hospital in Montreal. I was followed not only by my obstetrician but by various residents studying under him and that was fine. I had a pelvic exam by a med student – after I was ASKED and after I said YES and while I was AWAKE – and that was fine. I had a bunch of student nurses in the room while I was in labor and other than the fact that I wanted to slap one of them for asking me open-ended questions while I was painfully contracting, it was fine. When I actually pushed my baby out there were so many doctors, residents, and med students watching that they could have brought a film crew in and I wouldn’t have noticed.

I get the concept of a teaching hospital and obviously these students need to practice on someone. Anyone can read the medical books but you won’t get far if you’re not actually practicing what you’re learning.

But permission MUST be sought out to do something as invasive and personal as a pelvic exam. For the CMA to consider this to be acceptable in any way is disgusting and unethical. How are Canadian women supposed to feel safe and comfortable while going into surgeries now?

The sad part is that the article gives this statistic:

Sixty-two per cent of respondents said they would consent to medical students doing pelvic exams, and an additional 5 per cent said “yes” but only if a female student was doing the exam.

So 62% said yes, 67% if it was a female. That’s not everyone but it’s a respectable number of patients who would be willing to left students prod around for the sake of a teaching moment.

What’s scary though is that 33% would have said no but may have had no choice in the matter.

If those 33% were drugged and violated the courts would call it rape, but if those 33% were knocked out and examined then apparently the CMA calls it science.

Over here Catherine is gearing up to write an open letter and petition to the CMA about this horrifying lack of respect. And over here Shannon makes an interesting point by reminding us that even the dead must have given consent for their bodies to be used in any scientific or educational manner, so essentially the CMA is treating live women and their bodies with less respect than someone who is dead.

I know how that makes ME feel. How does it make you feel?

Why Roman Polanski can rot in jail for all I care

Posted on by

I wasn’t going to bother writing about this since other people have done it so well already, but honestly it’s been on my mind a lot and I can only rant about the same things here at home so many times before George reaches a point where I might find him on Priceline, looking for a flight to take him far away from my flapping mouth.

(I kid. Mostly.)

The main reason I need to say something though is because I’m still continually shocked at how many people keep defending Roman Polanski, saying that he shouldn’t be extradited to the U.S. after being arrested, saying he should be given a pardon for his crime over three decades ago. I can’t believe how many people think that what he did to a 13-year-old girl is okay now that it’s so many years after the fact.

Let’s just lay out the basic facts, even though we’ve all heard them already. Polanski’s victim was 13 years old and under the impression that she was doing a modeling shoot. He gave a 13-year-old girl champagne and drugs. He came on to her and ignored her requests to be taken home. He kissed her even after she said no. He raped her even after she said no. He then sodomized her after she said no.

Right. And people want him to be granted a pardon? Why?

I keep reading the reasoning behind it. The victim is a grown woman who wants the charges to be dropped. The problem is, it’s not up to the victim to bring about justice. It’s out of her hands now and while I feel for her because she’s tired of being drawn into the media circus and forced to relive it all, it’s a terrible precedent to drop charges just because the victim asks. Because then, in the future, as long as a rapist (or criminal of any sort) has enough money or power or threatening presence to lean on a victim, he will never have to pay for what he did. I do hope that they can keep her out of the court as much as possible and that it will be a closed court for her sake, but it’s not a strong enough reason to just drop this case.

Possibly the most ridiculous reasoning is that he is such a brilliant director. I’m sorry, what? What does someone’s talent have to do with whether or not they should face justice for committing a crime? If it had been a janitor who did this to a 13-year-old girl I seriously doubt that anyone would be saying, “oh hey, come on let’s give him a pardon! Sure, he drugged and raped a young girl but he’s such a good janitor, it’s okay to look the other way!” All the talent in the world does not give a person carte blanche to rape a girl. There’s no movie in the world that is brilliant enough to excuse the director behind it for raping someone.

Then there are other laughable reasons to let him walk free: He’s paid for it in notoriety, he’s paid for it because he was never able to come back to the U.S. not even to get his Oscar (gasp!), he’s 72 years old now and too old to be sent to prison.

Wow.

Paid for it in notoriety? Please. He still managed to film a great deal of movies with talented actors over the past 30 years. He hasn’t been living in a cave with Osama Bin Laden, he’s been living comfortably in France, continuing on with his career. I don’t see how he’s paid his debt to society with notoriety.

He couldn’t come back to the U.S. for an Oscar? Quelle horreur! I’m sure he spent just as many sleepless nights fretting about it as his victim did after she was raped.

As for his age, yes it is true. Being 72 years old is quite old to be shipped off to prison. On the other hand it’s really difficult for me to drum up a whole ton of sympathy based on his age when he never once considered his victim’s young age.

Then, in possibly the most disappointing defense ever, Whoopi Goldberg went and lost all the respect that I had for her – and it was a lot – by saying on The View that “it wasn’t rape rape”. Pardon? Not RAPE RAPE? What does that even mean? One, she was 13 and he was in his 40s. That right there is statutory rape to start with. And then there was the, as I mentioned, repetition of the word “NO” that she kept using throughout the ordeal. I don’t know where Whoopi Goldberg learned about rape, but where I come from No means No and ignoring the No means rape. In fact it means “rape rape”.

On and on it goes, people wringing their hands over how terrible this whole so-called witch hunt is. People complaining that it was sneaky and underhanded for Switzerland to arrest Polanski when he was under the impression that he was attending a film festival (you know, with his poor flailing career that was so undermined by all that notoriety) and how that was just unfair. OH CRY ME A FUCKING RIVER. Because it was all about being fair when a girl who was under the impression that she would be photographed for an issue of Vogue ended up drunk, drugged, and raped.

Poor Polanski. Poor Polanski MY ASS.

I don’t care how old he is now, I don’t care how many years have gone by, how much he paid his victim, how brilliant he is on set, or how much he might claim to have been unaware of the girl’s age at the time (hint: If he needed her mother’s permission to shoot the photos, she was obviously underage as an adult would not need any parental consent for modeling). I don’t care because what he did was a crime. It was a crime and he KNEW it was a crime, he admitted his guilt, and then he ran away so that he couldn’t be sentenced because he was SCARED.

You know, scared, probably kind of like that young girl was.

I don’t know how long we’ll have to wait to find out whether he’ll be shipped back to the U.S. to face his crime but I hope they throw him on a direct flight back and that any leniency he was promised before he bolted three decades ago gets tossed out the window. He raped a 13-year-old girl and there is no excuse for that and I would personally like my kids to live in a world where money, fame, and talent can’t buy your way out of justice.

Things that are ticking me off right now

Posted on by

In no particular order, here are some things that are ranking quite high on my annoyance meter right about now.

1. Dog poop. Not my dog’s poop, though I wouldn’t go so far as to call hers delightful or fun or anything. However, what’s great about it is that it quickly ends up tied up in a plastic bag. Apparently there are a few people in my neighborhood who aren’t so vigilant with the bag situation, and it’s making me borderline homicidal. What is especially pushing me over the edge is that someone keeps letting their (potentially large, I would say) dog crap all over the snowbank directly out front, all along what would be the lawn of our building. It isn’t just that it’s unattractive to look at or that it creates a delicate obstacle course for me – it means that I have to constantly worry that people in the building think that *I* am the one neglecting to pick up after my dog.

There have been two times that I’ve run downstairs with Pearl, expecting her to just pee, only to discover – aww, crap (pun totally intended) – I should have brought that bag after all. In both of those situations, I ran right back upstairs, flew back down, and picked it up. I do not leave dog poop all over the damn place. In fact there was one time where I had already thrown the bag away on a walk only to have her go again a few blocks later. Luckily I was close to home/the dumpster, and I had a wad of tissue paper in my pocket. And that’s all I have to say about THAT experience.

But the point is, I own a dog and part of the responsibility of being a dog owner is that I need to clean up after her when I walk her. If people don’t want to bother with that, then they should bloody well make sure they have a private yard – they can let their dog crap to their heart’s content out there, as long as the general public, and all the decent dog owners don’t have to deal with it.

2. Hand-over child care. On Sunday I filled up an ice cube tray with water and a bit of red food coloring to make some ice jewels. This makes for some fun times out in the snow. On Monday we had a ped day, so we went outside with them and Hayley and Breanna pretended to be pirates digging for treasure:

Winter pirates

And then they used them to build a little winter fairy house:

Bejeweled fairy house

They were having a good time. Then all of a sudden, this car pulls up (we were near the side street), and a kid who was maybe five ran out, in a snowsuit, and started playing with them. No problem! The kids were ecstatic to have someone not related to them to play with for a bit.

Except no one else got out of the car. I waited, confused, and glanced over a few times, and through the tinted windows I could make out the outline of someone sitting in the front seat, talking on the phone.

The three kids played for – no kidding – 15 minutes while this girl’s mother sat in her car. She didn’t know me, couldn’t see the kids when they ran around to the courtyard, and clearly expected me to watch her daughter. And obviously I did, because what else was I going to do?

Eventually a school bus pulled up from one of the other schools in the area and a bunch of elementary school kids came out. It was only then that the mother got out of her car, pulled some grocery bags from the back and then called to one of the boys to come help her carry them in. Obviously she was just killing time between arriving home from errands and meeting her son at the bus stop – a lot of schools don’t allow kids below a certain age to get off the bus without someone there to greet them.

But the big kicker was that she never once acknowledged me – no thank you, and not even a friendly smile. She looked right at me, all of three feet away, and turned around and headed to the building behind ours. Well you’re welcome, beyotch!

I just don’t get people sometimes.

3. Scholastic. Andrea from The Fishbowl posted a link on Twitter about a group that is trying to petition Scholastic to return to selling books and nothing more. I couldn’t agree more. When I was a kid* our Scholastic catalogs each month contained books. We picked the ones we wanted, we got them, we read them, we were thrilled. Now at least half the books that Scholastic sells seem to come with some sort of tie-in toy, like they’re the Happy Meal of the literary world.

That’s not too bad. I don’t love it, but I can live with it. Last year Hayley got a Backyardigans book and it came with three little figurines. Last month she got a chapter book about unicorns and it came with a small stuffed unicorn. That’s borderline acceptable – at least she’s still reading.

But the problem is that they also sell JUST toys. Instead of ordering any book at all, you can get random things like handheld games, cars, rubber stamp kits, and so on. Scholastic is supposed to be for books, to promote reading. How does a package of toy cars promote reading? It doesn’t. I had to argue with Hayley because she wanted to get a little stationary set that came with all of six sheets of paper, a pencil, some stickers, and three stamps for something like $12. I told her if she wanted that sort of thing so badly we could get more of it for less at the dollar store but if she wanted to order something from Scholastic it had to be something to read, end of discussion.

I am ALL for returning to the books-only version of Scholastic, thank you very much.

*Every time I start saying “when I was a kid” I feel like I’m getting old. Any second I’m going to start screaming for people to get off my damn lawn. And stop letting your dog crap there, while you’re at it!

There are probably more things annoying me, but being hungry happens to be one of them so I guess I’ll go dig up some lunch now!