Monthly Archives: March 2010

It’s no wonder men are so often cavalier about health and their appearance. There are so many more things women have to deal with that men rarely encounter.

I am discovering that the myths, for instance, are true about one’s body after childbearing. I have spoken of this before, and I won’t repeat it. Nobody wants me to go OVER AND OVER my body issues, like it’s something I’m so hard done by. But it bears repeating that when women so famously lament of breasts deflating, guts inflating and pee escaping (isn’t anyone else more incontinent than before? You sneeze and – surprise! No?) it is no joke. Nobody really talks about it because it sounds, I don’t know, ungrateful somehow. And, yes, in the light of eternity, the fact that things aren’t as tight as they were before baby is not quite deserving of hard feelings. It’s just that there’s truth to those tales, and unless you’re Superwoman or a celebrity you’re likely to have suffered the effects of one of them.

But let’s not forget the ladies who haven’t borne children. Eventually, every female experiences frozen hands and feet, razor rash on the bikini line, spider veins, heightened sensitivity and moodiness, bloating so egregious as to appear pregnant or cramps from the menses (my mom doesn’t say PERIOD, she says MENSES). And extra aesthetic delights like muffin tops , ass dimples, mottled knees and disadvantaged bosoms are only exacerbated by the fact that women can’t get away with baggy clothes like men can, lest we be dowdy. And we all know loose clothing hides a multitude of sins. No wonder if I tell my husband or my brother that they’re looking thick around the middle they just pat their bellies, stick ’em out farther and spear another smokie. Such PRIDE in not measuring up to perfection.

Of course, women could learn a thing or two from men’s lackadaisical attitudes. I don’t mean to get deep on you, but if girls didn’t put so much emphasis on their shortcomings, nothing would be said of them.

But, in the spirit of evening things out, let’s think of superficial things women have going for them that men don’t. Like makeup. When we get a pimple, we can hide it. We don’t have to check our hairlines from our nineteenth birthday onward. We can highlight our hair to bring out the colour in our eyes. We can stuff our bras. We can take a sick day when the menses hit. And we can complain to our friends about said burdens.

Going forward, I shall attempt to remind myself often that the reason God gave women so much baggage is so that they can be an example of better health and sharpened self-awareness.

In a way, varicose veins beget yin and yang.

I like Adam Lambert. I never watched American Idol, but I think he should have won. I think he has a unique style, voice and sound, and he seems like a decent guy. And the hair! The eyeliner! The wailing reminiscent of 80’s rock ballads! He really is a great find.  So, as a harbinger of the wrath I am about to unleash on poor Adam, I must stress that I’m not blaming the guy in the following critique. I know when you first get a record contract you probably have to do what the label tells you. And if you sing their songs and perform their schtick you can earn the right to call the shots down the road.

It’s just that his songs thus far are so very bad.

Adam has two songs on the radio, to my knowledge. For Your Entertainment is not meant to be anything more than catchy tunes courting simple, but workable, lyrics. Fast songs can get away with folly since they’re just trying to get your toes tapping. It’s like Lady Gaga’s Telephone. Totally ridiculous words + a danceable beat = a fantastically absurd song! I love it. I love her, that Lady Gaga. So, what I mean to say is, in that vein, For Your Entertainment passes. So, now that I think about it, scratch that song from my bad list.

But I can’t say enough of the opposite for Whataya Want From Me?  The answer, Adam, is NO MORE OF THAT. First, how many times can you repeat that phrase? Did the writer get a serious bout of block and thought he’d just cut and paste? Also, much like Lisa Loeb’s Stay from the soundtrack of one of my favourite guilty pleasures Reality Bites, the song makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. I know you can argue that poetry is subjective and it means something different to each person and you can superimpose your own interpretation of the words to make them meaningful to you. But every time I hear that song I get so frustrated because I have a hunch it’s secretly just a bunch of words forced together into something vaguely romance-related. One minute Adam is warning whomever to slow it down, and next thing he’s begging the same person not to give up. MAKE UP YOUR MIND.

Don’t worry, I’m sure I see a generic point to this song: I really want you because you’re so very good for me but I have issues and I need for you to be patient with my limitations. But it doesn’t work. It’s so ambiguous as to make it nonsensical. Why must they dumb everything down? It’s so TIRESOME.

Perhaps I’ve missed the point and the music is too profound for my small, confused mind. Or maybe it’s supposed to be as devoid of meaningful sentiment as the thousands of other songs out there. However, I can’t help but think otherwise when Lambert sings the song so earnestly. Let’s face facts and agree that it’s just bad poetry. Which makes me sad because, Adam, I LOVE the tune. I do. And I love the way you sing it. It’s such a shame.

Surely someone understands the hidden mysteries of pop music better than I. Please, enlighten.

Do you ever take something out of your closet that you wear on a regular basis and then one day – BAM! – it hits you like a rock how unfashionable it is? Like a light goes off in your brain and you see the item with eyes anew and you wonder how long ago it became unfashionable. Then you’re mortified for all those times you wore it in the recent past when people must have been clucking in sympathy behind your back.

Because I am in my early thirties I have often wondered if I even know what’s cool anymore. A roommate of mine used to show me a piece of clothing she had just bought and ask me if it was IN, or SO VERY OUT. We’d both scratch our heads, ponder the item and end up none the wiser.

I have never been a real clothes-horse, but I’ve always bought decent stuff. Or so I think. I look at magazines. I watch TV. I look at other humans. I should know what’s passé, right? (Does the fact that I just used my grandma’s word “passé” make me passé? Hm.)

Any clothes shopping I do nowadays is with my baby daughter. As such, unless someone else is with us, I never get to try stuff on. So I’ll buy something and then inevitably return it because my ape arms extend far past the sleeves. Or my bum fails to fill the rear. Or it just looks off and I wonder if it’s just me or is the item making me out to be an older gal attempting a look befitting a teenager? Or, worse, a middle-ager? Sometimes it’s just really hard to tell, you know?

What I should do is always have this one friend of mine with me every time I shop for clothes. This friend (who, back in high school, worked with me at the Pizza Hut where we had to wear high-waisted, tapered slacks as part of our uniform) always wears unique pieces that make her look youthful, but not immature. Although, incidentally, said friend once encouraged me to buy a spring dress from a hip London shop featuring a BUBBLE SKIRT, so, yeah, she’s not always bang-on… But I trust her judgment most of the time.

Even my husband has told me I must get out of my go-to clothing: Lululemons. MY HUSBAND. Who, when we first started dating, had tight, grey, CUFFED sweatpants that were at least three inches too short. And he wore them ALL THE TIME. Which just shows that there must be something terribly awry with my wardrobe. But then, this is the man who consistently complains that I never wear hotpants and knee socks around the house.

I would upload a picture of my latest discovery, but I’m a) embarrassed, and b) not sure the off-ness of the item will translate in a photo. Plus, I need to know that I’m not the only one who’s made this sort of discovery. Am I?

I just read an article on how French Immersion programs in Canada are elitist clubs for parents in the mid-to-upper class who want to ensure their children learn alongside children of the same social class and academic ability. It said the program exists to the exclusion of kids from lower-income households and scholastic status. This assertion reminded me of the opinion of a formerly well-known TV personality with whom I worked. He told me once that F.I. only serves to confuse children and breeds graduates who have inferior English skills. This guy had never had any exposure to the program and was, quite vehemently, stating his opinion on it in SPITE of that fact.

I was in French Immersion. My friends and I have never heard so much as a whisper that inclusion in the program was based on our parents’ desire to keep us away from problem kids. I guarantee 90% of students were there because their parents simply saw the advantage of being exposed to another language. And I, for one, would never apologize for enrolling my children in anything that would challenge, enlighten or encourage them.

Yes, French Immersion does see students who are generally better academics. Yes, there are fewer problem kids. But that could be just because parents who would enroll their kids in the program would generally take more interest in education overall.  Also, I don’t understand the argument that only upper-class kids take part. Where was the fact checker on this article? Both the French and the English program in any school reflect the social class of the families in the area where that school exists. And F.I. schools exist everywhere, from Whalley to West Vancouver.

As far as rendering a child worse in the ostensibly more important language of English, I would argue the exact opposite. I believe that exposing a person of any age to another language makes them better in their dominant tongue. As someone who has studied language my whole life (and not just French) I know that learning another language causes me to understand the rules that comprise the English language so much better. I see parallels in English that I never would have seen had I not been exposed to the counterparts in the other language. I have a far deeper understanding of conjugation, of syntax and of idioms in English as a result. Don’t think that’s important? Well, whether you realize it or not, every day that you use language, you are practicing each one of those elements. Your ability to understand and express grow immeasurably with exposure to linguistic elements of any tongue. Just like the importance of literacy is to the success of us all, so is the deeper understanding of the language we use.

Furthermore, there is an enormous social benefit in learning another language to the depth that French Immersion offers. I have always been of the opinion that, with such an education, you are far more likely to have acceptance and tolerance of other cultures. Part in parcel of learning a language is simultaneously being exposed to the way the people of that language think, the way they work and the thought patterns associated with that culture. It’s impossible not to glean a better understanding of a people after having learned their language. You always learn more than just words. Infused in words and phrases are thoughts, sentiments and ideals.

As for the argument that the program is so much more difficult that you end up excluding all the kids who aren’t as academically strong…well, I’m unsure where the writer was going with that. Should schools omit challenging material altogether because some children may not succeed? By and large, a student who does not succeed in French Immersion will have similar problems in the English curriculum. Immersion is not taught in the same fashion as regular French classes. After a short time, understanding becomes second nature and is quite secondary to the subject taught. If you have trouble understanding math, it’s because of the math, not the French. 

I take great issue with the writer of this article. NONE of us would want our kids in a school infamous for trouble. My desire for my kids to be in a school with well-behaved, hard-working students from stable households does not mean I harbour what this writer seems to think is a dirty little secret of elitism.

My guess is that lower-income parents aren’t enrolling their kids into French Immersion in droves (if the article is accurate) because, in general, lower-income people have less education, put less emphasis on education and express less interest in education choices for their kids.

The writer would only have a point if F.I. cost money, was only offered in affluent areas or required a minimum GPA. It does not.

I don’t think it’s wrong to choose the English curriculum. I would just be curious to know what arguments parents have used in deliberately not choosing to enroll their children in French. I would hope parents are not listening to the likes of the writer from the aforementioned article.