test
All posts published in February 2007
Page 2 of 3
-
The Shameless blogging team
February 17, 2007 • Wesley Fok
-
seductive urinals to decrease drunk driving
February 16, 2007 • Thea Lim
New Mexico in the U.S. has implemented a program that reminds drinkers not to drink and drive when they’re at the urinal — pretty smart if you figure the urinal is the last place drunk men stop before going to their cars. Oddly enough, the safety message will be delivered by “talking” deodorizer pucks. This is how it works:
“When a man steps up, the motion-activated plastic device says, in a woman’s voice that’s flirty, then stern: ‘Hey, big guy. Having a few drinks? Think you had one too many? Then it’s time to call a cab or call a sober friend for a ride home.’” (This quote hijacked from The Toronto Star.)
Okay, I applaud this very creative (and totally weird) way to stop drunk driving. But what’s with the gender bias? As if it wasn’t irritating enough that the puck is a woman, who does she have to talk in a stupid voice? Wouldn’t a TALKING URINAL PUCK on its own be enough to surprise people out of driving home drunk? And does anyone else feel grossed out by the implied message of the “flirty and then stern?” tone of voice - i.e. that the ideal babe is a hot combination of Ultimate Sex-Machine and Your Mom?
I’m assuming that this campaign only targets men because statistically the majority of drunk-driving incidents involves men - and I can sort of accept that. But why does the campaign also have to force sicko gender role conditioning and hetero-normative values, at the same time as it pushes safe driving?
-
Happy Valentine’s Day, Atmosphere!
February 14, 2007 • Elle E.
This week has been ecorgasmic and its only Wednesday.
First, Elizabeth May came to town, determined to have the Green Party invited into the federal leaders debate. Singing this petition can help bring her refreshing voice into what is normally a very boring event.
Then, I saw David Suzuki on his If You Were Prime Minister Tour (and if hearing his passionate speech weren’t enough, they were also giving away really cool buttons that match my favourite yoga shirt). The dreary chill that is February has left me in need of optimism, and Suzuki delivered. (I also need vitamin D, but he couldnt help on that one.)
And now, just now, the opposition forced a pro-Kyoto bill. (more inside…)
-
Hello Cruel World, Hello Vital Read
February 13, 2007 • Stacey May Fowles
“Hi, I’m Kate Bornstein. I’m nearly sixty years old, and a lot of people think I’m a freak for a lot of reasons. I wrote this book to help you stay alive…the world is healthier because of its outsiders and outlaws and freaks and queers and sinners. I fall neatly into all those catagories, so it’s no big deal to me if you don’t…”
I read a lot of books. Some are good and some are bad, but it’s rare that a book hits me with so much meaning and relevence as Kate Bornstein’s Hello Cruel World: 101 Alternatives to Suicide for Teens, Freaks and Other Outlaws (Seven Stories Press.) Bornstein is no stranger to being an outlaw - she’s spent her life as a sexual outsider and written some groundbreaking books about struggling with and battling the status quo, and she’s changed many lives in the process. 101 Alternatives is her attempt to “help you stay alive.”(more inside…)
-
Wind Farms: A positive negative.
February 12, 2007 • Catherine Hayday
One of the arguments sometimes levied against wind farms is that they kill birds. Gory mental images of flocks of birds flying helplessly into a sort of birdie cuisinart.
Hopefully, the findings of the study below mean that idea is more myth than reality, and that we can give bit more credit to our little winged buddies:
Massive Offshore Wind Turbines Safe for BirdsThe gist of the article (though it’s only two pages… go on, give it a read) is that Denmark’s National Environmental Research Institute developed Thermal Animal Detection System (TADS), an infrared collision-detection system. This system was mounted on a turbine on a common flight path, and was left on around the clock, for 2400 hours. During that time, TADS “spotted only fifteen birds and bats and one moth flying near the turbine, and it recorded one collision involving a small bird or bat.”
-
Calling all ladyfesters
February 11, 2007 • Nicole Cohen
Ladyfest Toronto is being organized for the last weekend of September and is looking for performers:
We are a DIY, grassroots, inclusive, pro-feminist, pro-diversity festival that will showcase women in art and music. We are looking for feminist:
- visual artists
- musicians
- spokenword
- performance artists
- filmmakers
- volunteers
- people to help with poster/web designFor more information please contact ladyfesttoronto at gmail dot com.
-
What Would Bono Do?
February 6, 2007 • Elle E.
When I saw the alluring green cover of the latest Bitch magazine, my heart skipped a beat. I was excited to read their take on the recent surge of eco-tainment, but *spoiler alert* I’m sad to say they really dropped the ball.
In the editorial they confess we were a little sick of this issues theme before we even got started. After all, a parade of green issues preceded us in 2006, from Elle to Dwell to the Economist to Vanity Fair. So they rebel with an issue devoted to all things green, including pot, money and jealousy.
The broad theme is a cool idea on its own, but it’s prefaced by some serious eco-bashing. Explaining, green, after all, is associated with plenty of things not nearly as righteous as the likes of Bono might have you believe they admit they are reluctant to be just another magazine earnestly waving the flag for environmentally aware consumption, pondering the implications of global climate change, and enthusing about the awesomeness of driving a Prius and living in a solar-powered geodesic dome in the woods.
Hold up. Bono? Geodesic domes? I double check that I am in fact reading Bitch, and that they still offer a feminist response to pop-culture.
-
I’m not sure about this tactic, but I certainly see it as creative…
February 6, 2007 • Stacey May Fowles
Fire with fire, eh? I just stumbled across this facinating story of gay-marriage supporters who have decided to collect signatures for a November ballot initiative in Washington. The ballot would effectively limit marriage only to couples who want to have children. Those who didn’t have children in three years would see their marriages dissolve in the eyes of the law.
Now, of course, this action is a parody of the Supreme Court’s decision to deny gays the right to marry because their unions aren’t “for the purpose of procreation.” And of course it would never pass, but it certainly is making its point. Interesting tactic, and amusing to me because while I’ve always been in support of gay marriage, I’ve always been anti-marriage and, well, anti-procreation for myself (personally, not generally, of course.) But is this the right way to get things done?
“We want people to think about the purpose of marriage,” says Gregory Gadow of the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (DOMA.) “If it exists for the purpose of procreation, they must understand then that these are the consequences.”
He thinks that by striking down his bill, the courts would be forced to confront its decision in the gay-marriage case. There aren’t a lot of pro-gay-marriage groups willing to come forward and support Washington’s DOMA, likely because it seeks to strip rights from those who choose to stay childless in marriage.
Do you think the parody furthers the fight?
-
Do you have a facebook?
February 6, 2007 • Nicole Cohen
I signed up for Facebook, partly to see what the hype was all about, partly for “research” purposes (I’m a graduate student in communications, after all), and partly from buckling under the pressure of being asked every day for a week, “are you on Facebook?”
I stayed on Facebook because it’s fascinating: people compare the site to highly addictive drugs for a reason. I’ve spent hours sifting through profiles of old high school friends and random people I’ve met in the real world over the years, looking at photos of their weddings, vacations and parties, marvelling at how seemingly unconnected friends know each other, and keeping up-to-date on people’s plans, careers and relationships.
Like many astute students of communications (as I said, this is research!), I’m interested in how free sites like MySpace and Facebook plan to make money. After all, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. purchased MySpace for $580 million (US) for a reason (which is made somewhat clear in this fascinating article). It seems to me to be about more than just getting people to voluntarily participate to make content costs virtually zero, getting participants to draw each other to the site (that’s why it’s called social networking) and then selling that high traffic to advertisers.
The answer to this question is becoming increasingly clear as I realize that Facebook is a data collector’s wet dream. By filling out personal information such as favourite books, movies and events we’re attending, we are volunteering information that is in turn repackaged and sold for big bucks (bigger than the bucks made from selling ads, I would imagine) to marketing companies and other interested parties, who then turn around and use our info to sell us things. This is nothing new (see: airlines, mailing houses and retail outlets for other examples), and something I think we have been able to brush off as just part of the massive marketing machine that we have learned to live with, to put it somewhat simply.
But something interesting (and I think something new) is happening on Facebook. We are willingly (and happily) filling out even more personal information, including our addresses, phone numbers and email addresses, places of work, political affiliation, religious and sexual orientation, who we have lived with and for how long, how we know each other, who we are dating, where we go to school, etc.
I was shaken out of my Facebook haze last night when I visited this site and learned about Facebook’s alarming privacy policy, which at first I thought was about limiting who on the site could see the photos of me and my friends from Friday night. Silly me: it’s about who has access to the personal information I keep plugging in. Do You Have a Facebook? traces the links between Facebook and the United States government and has kept me up all night trying to understand the implications of this.
These are critical questions we need to be discussing as we increasingly participate in sites like Facebook. We are drawn to social networking sites because we we want to establish personal connections with each other, however mediated those connections may be. I think we need to be asking what we’re willing to give up in the process.
-
Fight back (part II).
February 5, 2007 • Catherine Hayday
In the spirit of better late than never, this entry is the follow-up to Fight Back, Part I. (I said I’d post Part II in several weeks, right? I’m pretty sure that’s what I said. No, I said a couple. I know. Mea culpa. Also possibly holidays culpa.)
This post is a follow-up on one idea: that women can’t win fights with men. As with the last post (and really, as with any post), what is written below is based on what I have experienced and read; if you have something to add, or some specialized knowledge, please jump in below with your comments.
On that note, the three-pronged reply to “women can’t win fights with men”:
* A pound of muscle is a pound of muscle, regardless of who it’s attached to;
* Women are stronger than they think; and
* Strength alone doesn’t win a fight.
(more inside…)
