So I have a fantastic health tip for everyone today. It's free, it's easy, it involves literally no work or effort, and I promise, it will make you a happier, more positive person. Sound too good to be true? Well it's not. Step one: Stop watching the news and reading the news paper. That is all.
The news isn't what it once was. Strange that watching a satyrical comedy made me realize this. I watched Anchorman 2 and came to realization that the news used to be about things you needed to know. Important happenings around the world or in your own neighbourhood. It was things that effected you, things that mattered. But somewhere along the way, the media outlets realized that there are more effective ways to get peoples attention. They found that tapping into stronger emotions gets, and keeps peoples attention more effectively. People don't care about who got elected in a different county, or if the god particle has been discovered in Switzerland. People want drama. So that's what they give us.
The Black Eyed Peas have a great line in their song "Where is the Love"
I think the whole worlds addicted to the drama
Only attracted to the things that will bring you trauma
Are people really addicted to drama? We surely get our fair share of it every day thanks to media. When we get fed drama every day, do we start to need it? Drama gets our stronger emotions going. It gets us angry, it gets us upset, it gets us sad, and it gets us pumped up. When you hear the stories told by the media today, they peak your interest. That's why those things are in the news, to get you roped in. It's not because they are important stories.
Here's the part where I give an example! Todays news according to CBC is as follows: Some guy named Justin Bourque killed a RCMP officer. A 14 year old boy and 12 year old girl assaulted a woman and tried to steal her baby. Some branch of government is going bankrupt, so is planning to charge people more money to look up information. Killer whale J-32 died. 2 carjackings and chases where halted by police. <-This is the same formula the media uses every day to keep you coming back. Take news, add drama, mesmerize millions. It's the same thing every day. Someone got murdered, someone stole something, a politician is corrupt, the worlds getting to warm, there are dangers lurking in your home, and the sky is falling. Don't get me wrong. I believe that all those things happened, and will continue to happen. My problem is, it's the same shit every day. It's not intended to inform you, or protect you. It's designed to scare you, enrage you, provoke you and agitate you. None of these stories matter to you. You didn't get murdered, and if you did, you'd know. You didn't know killer whale J-32. You are shocked an enraged about the corrupt politician, but you will do nothing about it. You're car didn't get carjacked, and again, if it did, you already knew about it. Then they throw some stories into the news to make it feel like you're involved or effected by it, like "dryer lint fires are far more common than we know, are you at risk?" or "Do you have two ears, ten fingers, and 3 or more toes? You have a 4% greater chance of getting cancer!" They make you think something bad might happen to you to invoke fear because lets face it, you're going to have to tune into that to make sure you're going to be ok, but really, are you going to do anything about it? And does it really effect you? Yes there were 15,000 dryer lint fires in the USA last year, but there are 117,500,000 households in the USA, most with dryers, leaving you with a 1 in 8000 chance of having a dryer fire, which probably won't kill you anyhow. The "ebola epidemic" that had every media outlet on high alert, to keep the public safe and informed, was a hoax. 2 people died. It was a great story to get people freaked right out, and keep them glued to their TV for updates, but it was a complete and utter farce. How many people were talking about it? It was the only topic being discussed for days. 10 times more people will die of lightening strikes this year than ebola. While you were stuck to your TV, eating twinkies, watching the "ebola epidemic" you failed to realize, 1 in 150,000,000 people died of ebola, while 1 in 500 died from eating too much shit food and not getting enough exercise.
The news stories are chosen based on what is going to get the most viewers, not what is the most important. The best way to get viewers is to shock, scare, anger and engage them, so that's the media's goal. But what effect does this have on you? Is getting angry, stressed, horrified, and disgusted every day a good thing? I watched a story on the news once, that living with stress can take up to 4 years off your life. Ironic isn't it? Maybe the news media should have a disclaimer at the beginning of all their programs and on the front of the news paper: "Warning: contents known to cause extreme distress, side effects may include, upset stomach, elevated blood pressure, chest pain, and problems sleeping."
Wheel of morality, turn turn turn, tell us the lesson that we should learn! Todays lesson is: Turn it off. It doesn't effect you, and even if it does, there's nothing you can, or will do about it. What you don't know can't hurt you. I used to completely disagree with that statement, and thought it was extremely important to keep up to date on current happenings. I was wrong. As much a world happenings matter, they aren't worth ruining your life over. I stopped watching the news a few years ago and every now and then, I catch a bit of news from a friend or co-worker, and I remember why I stopped watching. I don't want to be angry, so why subject yourself to something designed to do just that.
The next time you sit down in front of your TV, you could watch a comedy, or the news. Ask yourself, do you want to be happy and laugh, or get angry and frustrated?
(If you caught my Animaniacs reference, you're probably on the right track to being happier, and less stressed already)
Friday, December 5, 2014
Monday, July 28, 2014
How does this equal rights thing work?
I completely understand the push for equal rights between men and women. It makes sense that a women, that is equally qualified for a job, should be paid the same as a man. A women's opinion should never be taken less seriously than a mans. Women should be provided all the rights and privileges that men have. My question is, when will men get the same rights as women? I can think of many circumstances in which men get the short end of the stick in todays society.
Lets start with jobs. If a man and woman are both doing the same job, and have the same skills, and can both accomplish the job, in the same fashion, in the same time frame, they should be compensated in the same way, without a doubt. The problem is, there are far more jobs that men do better than women. Almost all of the trades require physical strength. There are strong women, capable of accomplishing what most men can do, but the majority of women, are smaller, and have less muscle mass. This isn't discrimination, this is reality, or as I like to call it, fact. The average man is about half a foot taller than the average women and weighs 30+ lbs more. When it comes to lifting, hammering, dragging, pulling, or carrying anything of substantial weight, men are better. When it comes to being faster, stronger, more aggressive, men are also better. So whether it's carrying heavy piping up 14 flights of stairs on a job site, or trying to tackle a 300lbs linebacker, men are better equipped. So right of the bat, professional sports, and construction, goes to men. Add the fact that men either excel at, or at least have a much bigger interest in understanding how motorized things work, and almost all skilled trades go to men, and that's a huge percentage of the work force. Mens added strength and willingness to get down and dirty on a work site, make them more employable then women in a huge range of jobs, from firefighters, to cops, to mechanics, to plumbers, to professional athletes, to military. And when it comes to most other jobs, office jobs, sales, engineers, etc, men are at least as employable as women. So to demand that every employer higher an equal number of men and women is ridiculous and the government knows it. The government forces employers to higher a diverse workforce. A percentage of an employers staff must be a visible minority, to reflect the diversity living in the surrounding areas, but the government has implemented no such rule to include women. Why? Sorry but if you want to push for equal rights, then fine. A man that can lift more concrete on a job site, than the average women, therefore is more qualified, so the job must go to him.
The other point that interests me, is the legal aspect of a women rights when it comes to divorce and child custody. Approximately 85% of court cases result in the mother of a child, or children, winning full custody of the children. When trying to decipher why that is, it comes down to a few things. 1: That's always how it's been, so that's how it goes. 2: The mother doesn't work, and the father does, so the mother has the time to take care of the children and 3: The father makes more money, and can more easily afford to pay child support. Now of those things, where does equal rights for men come in? Men either work, or make more money, so they can't have their kids? I would think it would be pretty easy for a man to not work, or make less money, then could he get custody?
My last point, is on the home front. More and more of the work load that comes with children is being shared by both parents. I makes sense. It's both parents kids, so it should be both of their jobs. Traditionally, the man worked, made the money (being more easily employable as I've mentioned) and the women stayed at home and raised the children. Today unfortunately, the cost of living is high, and in order to afford all the shit we don't need, both men and women need to be employed. Again, it makes sense that if both parents are working 40 hours a week, they should both put in equal time to help rear the children. Men traditionally worked his 9-5 job, and maintained, the cars, and cut the grass, and trimmed the trees, did the renovations, and fixed the broken tap, and changed the hot water tank. Women vacuumed, did the dishes, cleaned the windows, did the laundry and spent more time with the children. There is one problem with this. Women want equality. They want men to do half the vacuuming, half the dishes, half the child rearing, which is all fine and dandy, but when is the last time the women in the house changed the oil in her car? Men still work 40 hours a week, and still do all of the "blue jobs" around the house, but are now expected to do 50% of the "pink jobs". How is equality sharing 50% of pink jobs, and leaving 100% of blue jobs to men? When did what men do for the household, become less important?
There was once a time when men were respected and appreciated for taking care of the household. The ability to keep a house in good condition, keep the car running smooth, keep the yard trimmed nice and keep food on the table was desirable quality. Now it seems the more desirable man, is the man that can change a diaper in 45 seconds, run a vacuum cleaner while holding a baby and put baby to bed at night. Oh, and he needs to make enough money to pay someone to do the oil change on the car, change the hot water tank and renovate the bathroom, because he doesn't have time for, or know how to do blue jobs.
Lets start with jobs. If a man and woman are both doing the same job, and have the same skills, and can both accomplish the job, in the same fashion, in the same time frame, they should be compensated in the same way, without a doubt. The problem is, there are far more jobs that men do better than women. Almost all of the trades require physical strength. There are strong women, capable of accomplishing what most men can do, but the majority of women, are smaller, and have less muscle mass. This isn't discrimination, this is reality, or as I like to call it, fact. The average man is about half a foot taller than the average women and weighs 30+ lbs more. When it comes to lifting, hammering, dragging, pulling, or carrying anything of substantial weight, men are better. When it comes to being faster, stronger, more aggressive, men are also better. So whether it's carrying heavy piping up 14 flights of stairs on a job site, or trying to tackle a 300lbs linebacker, men are better equipped. So right of the bat, professional sports, and construction, goes to men. Add the fact that men either excel at, or at least have a much bigger interest in understanding how motorized things work, and almost all skilled trades go to men, and that's a huge percentage of the work force. Mens added strength and willingness to get down and dirty on a work site, make them more employable then women in a huge range of jobs, from firefighters, to cops, to mechanics, to plumbers, to professional athletes, to military. And when it comes to most other jobs, office jobs, sales, engineers, etc, men are at least as employable as women. So to demand that every employer higher an equal number of men and women is ridiculous and the government knows it. The government forces employers to higher a diverse workforce. A percentage of an employers staff must be a visible minority, to reflect the diversity living in the surrounding areas, but the government has implemented no such rule to include women. Why? Sorry but if you want to push for equal rights, then fine. A man that can lift more concrete on a job site, than the average women, therefore is more qualified, so the job must go to him.
The other point that interests me, is the legal aspect of a women rights when it comes to divorce and child custody. Approximately 85% of court cases result in the mother of a child, or children, winning full custody of the children. When trying to decipher why that is, it comes down to a few things. 1: That's always how it's been, so that's how it goes. 2: The mother doesn't work, and the father does, so the mother has the time to take care of the children and 3: The father makes more money, and can more easily afford to pay child support. Now of those things, where does equal rights for men come in? Men either work, or make more money, so they can't have their kids? I would think it would be pretty easy for a man to not work, or make less money, then could he get custody?
My last point, is on the home front. More and more of the work load that comes with children is being shared by both parents. I makes sense. It's both parents kids, so it should be both of their jobs. Traditionally, the man worked, made the money (being more easily employable as I've mentioned) and the women stayed at home and raised the children. Today unfortunately, the cost of living is high, and in order to afford all the shit we don't need, both men and women need to be employed. Again, it makes sense that if both parents are working 40 hours a week, they should both put in equal time to help rear the children. Men traditionally worked his 9-5 job, and maintained, the cars, and cut the grass, and trimmed the trees, did the renovations, and fixed the broken tap, and changed the hot water tank. Women vacuumed, did the dishes, cleaned the windows, did the laundry and spent more time with the children. There is one problem with this. Women want equality. They want men to do half the vacuuming, half the dishes, half the child rearing, which is all fine and dandy, but when is the last time the women in the house changed the oil in her car? Men still work 40 hours a week, and still do all of the "blue jobs" around the house, but are now expected to do 50% of the "pink jobs". How is equality sharing 50% of pink jobs, and leaving 100% of blue jobs to men? When did what men do for the household, become less important?
There was once a time when men were respected and appreciated for taking care of the household. The ability to keep a house in good condition, keep the car running smooth, keep the yard trimmed nice and keep food on the table was desirable quality. Now it seems the more desirable man, is the man that can change a diaper in 45 seconds, run a vacuum cleaner while holding a baby and put baby to bed at night. Oh, and he needs to make enough money to pay someone to do the oil change on the car, change the hot water tank and renovate the bathroom, because he doesn't have time for, or know how to do blue jobs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)