Wednesday, 1 February 2012

Anti-[Insert Crime Here] Advertisements

You're enjoying your night watching television, hanging out on Facebook, or perhaps taking a stroll, riding the bus, or driving home. BAM! ANTI-AD. These things are everywhere, Anti-rape, anti-animal abuse, anti-domestic abuse, anti-murder. However, do they really even do anything? No. Not really.

Let me hea....

Oh, I'm supposed to rant.. right. Okay.

Hey, I've got an idea. We should send pictures around of naked women, or videos of women being raped. At the end of the video, or on the bottom of the picture we should put ANTI-RAPE. IT'S NOT OKAY TO RAPE PEOPLE. Sounds effective to me.

Wait a second, hasn't anyone caught on to the fact that seeing this would only increase rates of the crime happening? Think about it. Crimes that occur happen for two reasons; Impulse (crime of passion) or deliberation. If you have a rapist on the loose, would showing them pictures or video of rape be a good way of handling the situation? No. So why then do we should pictures of dead animals for animal abuse, or a bruised woman for domestic violence? People who commit these crimes either don't care that they are committing them, or committed them impulsively. This means these advertisements do literally nothing to prevent them. In fact if you show someone these pictures it may just come to the fore-front of their thoughts and may increase their urge to re-commit the crime.

What about awareness then? Right. I forgot we live in a society where people don't know that rape is considered socially and morally ineffably wrong. Or animal cruelty, or murder, or domestic violence. Do you really think that people don't realize these things are happening and that it's wrong?

The truth is that these advertisements bring "awareness" and awareness in this case is synonymous for money. These organizations want to remind you that these crimes are being committed and you should help. Unfortunately, you can't. If you knew someone committing the crime, you would have already told the authorities, or if you don't have a moral compass, this advertisement certainly won't convince you to. This means that because you don't know how to help the victims of these crimes "we do." By we I really mean the company that funded the advertisement, WITH THE MONEY PEOPLE SENT THEM AFTER SEEING THE LAST ONE.

The bottom line is that you should know at the end of the day what these advertisements really are for. If you're going to send money into these organizations, make sure they're actually doing something other than making useless posters or guerrilla marketing campaigns.

Good luck out there -- there's a lot of expectations.

Monday, 23 January 2012


I thought I'd start the week off with a nice and fluffy topic. Rape. Isn't it weird how most of the topics have long terms that don't quite roll off the tongue; Abortion, Euthanasia, Capital Punishment, RAPE. It just feels right.

The word I mean.... you sick b*stard.

I was in a discussion today involving this very topic. The situation that was proposed; a very obviously intoxicated girl goes into a bedroom at a party, and a guy follows her in. You aren't sure if the guy is drunk; what do you do?

Now undoubtedly the only ones that said they would go in were females; about half of them. However I doubt they would have done that unless it was actually a friend. The rest said they wouldn't. Why? It's very simple; you don't have reason to enter the room, they have a right to privacy, the two could be in a relationship, they could be going in there to do drugs, or he might be intoxicated too and they're just making a mistake. Regardless it isn't your problem. If she starts screaming for help or something, then you have reason for quite obvious reasons.

My bigger problem is this; I don't want to blame women for being raped, nor should anyone. However if you go to a party dressed provocatively, spend the night flirting with a guy, don't have accountable or any friends, and you get smashed; you're asking for it. That doesn't mean you deserve it, and it doesn't mean that he has the right to take advantage of you. It just means that you put yourself into a situation to allow it. Just like it's not a good idea for me to walk into gang territory with opposing colours; however I should still have the right to walk wherever I want, I don't have that right. Reality is different from idealism. In an idealistic world, a man would never take advantage of a woman, never hit a woman, and never rape a woman. Nor would a woman ever hit a man, poison a man, or emotionally abuse a man. However all of these things happen.

Being naive of a situation doesn't garner my sympathy. When a girl goes home with a guy after getting really drunk and he "rapes" her, I don't accept what she says as evidence, and nor does a court. It would be too easy then for girls to use it as an excuse (which they do often now.) I mean guys make mistakes and go back home with girls who they wouldn't be attracted to while sober, but they don't cry rape like women have the ability to.

Finally, the bigger problem is the fact that if a man and a woman are both intoxicated and she's too intoxicated to give consent, then it still counts as rape on the count of the man. My criminal justice professor failed to bring this up (thanks for confirming your bias.) How in the f*cking world is that fair? It perfectly outlines the fact that if a woman is drunk, men have to be the responsible ones, even if we're drunk too. If women don't want to be put on a pedestal, then don't f*cking allow laws that support the notion. When I challenged her on the law she just said; law isn't always even. Yeah, unless it's good for men, then law is evil and misogynistic.  

F*ck you.

Tuesday, 17 January 2012


No I'm not talking about the TV show. What is a friend? Today we live in a global community. Whether it be through blogging, video games, sports, hobbies, whatever your taste; you're probably connecting with individuals who you couldn't otherwise connect with in the past. Typically a friend would be someone in your local community who you met and share similar interests with. However, now those similar interests can be shared globally. Does this mean that someone who lives beyond reach is a friend? Or perhaps a physical presence is all that qualifies for friendship status.

Personally I think you can have a friend whom you've never met. Intimacy is not a requirement of friendship like it is of a romantic relationship. I don't have to hold hands with a fellow video gamer in Australia to enjoy playing video games with them (Although that might spice it up). So then if intimacy is not a requirement, why not call that person a friend? It seems silly to me that others scoff at the idea of being friends with someone you've never met, but unless they can think of a certain qualification for a friend that requires their presence, then they are exactly that; a friend.

To me a friend is someone who has your best interest in mind, they will support you, or not, depending on how they foresee the consequences of your actions. They are often enjoyable to be around, and are similar to you in at least a few ways. They will defend you when you need it, and be honest when you need it. That's it. Nowhere in there do I see physical presence as a requirement.

Tell me your thoughts.

Thursday, 5 January 2012

Thank you!

Just wanted to thank everyone for their continued support, yesterday I reached an all time high of over 175 views, which is great. I'll try and keep pushing out pieces, I'll have more free time to do so when I finish my last couple shifts at my job.

Wednesday, 4 January 2012

The PhD Dilemma

Hey, you sick bastard, not THAT dilemma.

PhD’s are also known as Doctorates of Philosophy which are usually awarded in succession of the master’s degree. Although if we’re going along with titles, Master sounds a hell of a lot more badass than Doctor. Then again, if we take philosophy in this case literally, Nietzsche was a pretty big pimp. Enough shenanigans.

With competition rising, education levels too are rising. No longer is a bachelor degree worth much value. In fact it’s often taken for granted that you have one. Unless it’s part of a professional program (Law, business, pharmacy etc.) then you usually won’t be able to do much with it. In fact very often it won’t even distinguish you. People with work experience but no education will be taken first, and often individuals will get jobs based on who they know and not their education. This means that many individuals are going higher up the education ladder, getting master’s and in some cases even PhD’s. In the last 20 years PhD holders have increased about 40% in OECD countries. Forty percent in twenty years is absolutely insane. Sure that’s across a whole slew of countries, but it’s still astronomic.

What does this mean then? Well first off, there’s nowhere to go after a PhD, so we might have finally hit our academic ceiling (hopefully – 10 years is enough,) Perhaps we may see an introduction of new professional schools for many professions (Psychology, biologists, and physicists.) In fact, that’s exactly what I think should happen. Back in the olden times they would apprentice people, who would shadow a professional and learn the trade from a young age. This is good for a number of reasons. The first is that the individual will learn much more and much faster with one on one, and actually gets hands on work. The individual doesn’t waste time learning unnecessary subjects (majority of our education up to and even sometimes including master’s or professional programs). It also holds the amount of individuals coming into the system at a maintenance level. If only one person can accept one or two others as a student, then the workforce wouldn’t flood over. You can see a similar system in the police force for example. Although professional schools offer this now, they offer very little hands on experience compared to an apprenticeship program. Residency in medical school may be the only thing I can think of that comes close (and it does come very close.)

This would guarantee PhD’s with jobs, make the work force less of a shock to the system, and make their degrees applicable to actual work experience rather than a certificate that says I’m a hard working individual with lots of knowledge about application but no application knowledge. It also would grab kids out of high school who still have passion that hasn’t been sucked out by the dirty strumpet that is university.

Just something to think about. Oh yeah, and by the way, I’m not suggesting all professions should apprenticeship (be honest with yourself English, philosophy etc. PhD’s – you’re not practicing a profession.)

Tuesday, 3 January 2012

Futures, Consequences will never be the same?

I'm not about to talk about THAT girl, but specifically I’m talking about uncertainty in university. There are times I wish that I had just gone for a professional faculty, like business, or pharmacy, or engineering. However, there is something to be said of working not only for you, but choosing something for you. I feel that people who pick these faculties rarely have passion for them, and usually feel safe and secure about choosing them. It’s easy to just go with a sure bet, a 9-5 job where you pull in enough to live comfortably. It’s something completely different when you shoot for the stars. You go for medicine, or you go for graduate school. Getting a master’s is easy, getting a doctorate is a whole new level of competition, it’s not 1 for every eight that apply (my nearest medical school), it’s often 1 for every ten. I’ve decided to go down this road now, to attempt to make it into medical school, or eventually a PhD program. The payoff is huge – being a doctor allows you to live anywhere you want, and make lots of money and earn lots of respect for doing it. To a lesser extent the same is true of being a Neuropsychologist. However, the downsides of not making it into either of these very small elite groups of people are also huge. Being stuck with a master’s or not getting into medical school leaves very little opportunities. Most likely I would end up taking the LSAT. Although being a lawyer makes a comfortable living, it most often isn’t a happy one.

That’s not all – I want to travel and see the world. It’s impossible to do this while going to university full time. That’s the point though – there never will be a “good” time to go off and travel. First it will be because I’m trying to get into a master’s program or medical school, then it will be I’m going into Post-Doc or residency or law school. Next I’ll want to find a stable job. Then I won’t be able to travel as long as I wanted because I won’t have a long vacation time. Before you know it I’m 35 and I haven’t seen anything. I’d rather travel now, in my youth. Explore and experience new things, rather than slowly be strangled to death by academia and expectations.

You also have to make sacrifices as a young individual. As much as it’s my time to live on my own and experience life by myself, I can’t kickoff from the nest with plans for a long academic haul – the fear of debt is too great. If your parents don’t have enough money to support you outside of the home (which is quite common) you end up living at home. The realization of living at home is made more difficult by the fact that you could end up living at home well into your twenties thanks to the long education process. Being a twenty-something year old male living at home is about the worst situation I can think of. You’re not only being told how to live, but think about the intimate consequences as well (my walls are paper thin.)

I understand now the allure of winning the lottery. It’s not about having obscene amounts of money to blow on anything and everything you see (although that could be fun too), it’s about the security. Always knowing that even if you fail, you have all this money to fall back upon is a beautiful thing. It’s not a selfish thing, it’s a human thing. Your dream of winning a lottery allows you to chase your other dreams. Dreams allow for more dreams, but when does dream making become surreal, imaginative, wishful, overly optimistic thinking? If we can’t achieve our first dreams, will we ever achieve the others? Perhaps then we must drop our first dreams, and live in the others. Rather than focusing an entire life on becoming a doctor or a neuropsychologist, only to eventually potentially be let down, take a shortcut. Travel now, see the world and all that was meant to be seen, talk to people, and embrace other cultures. If you get caught up in chasing one dream, you’ll never live the ones you really wanted in the first place, the ones that weren’t waypoints, but the finish line. They can be achieved too.

Then again, I’ll probably just end up staying in school and 8 years from now be nowhere closer to any of my dreams.

(Told you I was a cynic.)

Saturday, 31 December 2011

Happy New Years!

Just wanted to wish everyone a happy new years, hopefully the next will be just as good (or if you're a cynic like me - better.)
#1 Tip for new years:

Don't get drunk and die.

If you're going to die, do it sober, and if you're doing to get drunk, don't die doing it.

Simple. Easy. Effective. (sounds like a condom commercial.)