Condom companies are aiming to sell condoms to boys as young as 12, starting in Switzerland (of course it's Europe who gets it first, though I was genuinely surprised it wasn't Holland or Finland). Family-planning groups and anti-AIDS agencies proposed to have this child-friendly option after research showed that teens were having unprotected sex. (Really, Europe, you guys are a bit behind in this area if you think kids are just recently having unprotected sex.)
The new condoms, "Hotshot" will be 1.7 inches in diameter (compared with the normal 2 inches).
Nancy Bodmer, the head researcher, reported that these (Swiss) kids didn't have a very developed sexual knowledge, nor did they prefer to have protected sex. They don't understand the risks and consequences of sexual intercourse, and should the consequences rear their ugly heads, it was goodbye girlfriend.
And to think Europe was advanced in everything. I guess they're only human too.
Switzerland is the first and only country where these mini condoms will be sold, but the UK has shown some interest.
___________________________
I can't even imagine in my head a 12 year old engaged in sexual intercourse. Childhood innocence is extinct. I don't want to be a radical conservative, but this is pretty ick. I have a few issues though. I get the purpose: to prevent diseases and pregnancy. However, would mass-marketing these tiny condoms actually encourage sexual activity in that age group?
We're also creating a double standard. We want kids to be free and happy and not be restricted or burdened with adult things (like politics), yet we're marketing these adult things to them, with the help of the media. Sex is in over half the songs (ugh Birthday Sex) we hear on the radio, and yet we tell kids, "I support your freedom and stuff, but we want you to be kids." Children are torn between what their parents want and what the reality is like. After all, that's when puberty kicks in.
And speaking of puberty, I completely see the point of these tiny condoms. Testosterone usually kicks in when a boy is 9, peaking when he is around 14-16. Funny thing with testosterone: it makes the "sexual" gland in the brain a lot larger and positioned at the frontal cortex, which is why it seems to us that males are perverted. Not to mention, men have a sexual area in the brain that is 2.5 times larger than in females. So if a guy wants to experiment with girls, that's normal, but not normal.
Normal because it's biological, but not normal because of society's concept of childhood. However, this is needed because of the lack of sexual knowledge Bodmer claims there is, and because there are a lot more serious and disastrous diseases more than in the 1960s.
Even after all the facts, though, I still think 12 year olds having sex is just gross.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
America's rigged to let terrorists rule
Since you're my only follower 'cause someone forced me to make a tumblr D; I guess I should write more than one post, yeah? xD
So I was on youtube, and one of the TYT (The Young Turks) vid/podcast clips was really interesting. The Miss USA pageant winner this year is a Muslim girl, and this "Conservative Commentator" (as labelled by Fox News. Insert lulz hurr.) Debbie Schlussel, goes all like, "This country's rigged so that only Muslim girls would win!"Oh pshaw, you neo-Nazi!
By the way, Debs is a pretty fat, white, blond-hair-blue-eyes type of white woman, probably in her 40s. Her conspiracy theories are so out of this world you'd be wondering whether she should have belonged back in the holocaust.Anyhoo, the last time a Muslim girl won was probably in the 80s! And this is like, the first in a long time. CAN WE SAY HATERRRR.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Unschooling
Credits go to Gabbi for sharing this video.
So this is probably one of my few posts not related to Canadian anything, but since it's about education it's going to make it onto this page.
I completely agree with nurturing creativity and not restraining kids because, as some psychologist or whoever has said in their study, it's the social norms and expectations that kill our future's creativity by forcing them into jobs that make them less human and more robotic.
This laissez-faire style isn't going to open doors for them. What child would have the sudden interest spark in them to learn calculus, or history, etc?
Basically my opinions echo with The Young Turks.
Also, by crippling the children's opportunities, they'll only slow down the society and make it less productive. They should be shown opportunities for the future careers, but not "forcefully". Those parents in the video act as if school is an army camp where people brainwash you, and kick you if you don't comply. School isn't like that. School is a place where you can learn your stuff, and if you don't understand, then you have at least one teacher who can help you through, or you can go to peer tutor programs.
In addition, these children aren't only missing out on the compulsory courses which make a citizen productive, but these children will be lacking in the relationships area. How will they know how to communicate with authority figures? Their parents don't believe in punishment or even discipline, not even the benefits of health. How will they be able to function in the workplace? Another issue is how they can communicate with their peers later in their lives. After a decade and some odd years of being spoiled and pampered to their every whim, they'll need to learn how to compromise and negotiate with their peers, which they have not learned in their past lives.
Final comment (or so), "I'll just pick up a textbook and I would learn." What? We aren't all "the Rain Man", and even the real Rain Man had to put in at least 10 000 hours of hard gruelling training over the course of a decade (~3 hours per day) to be able to memorize books right off the bat. If people could just "learn", per se, nobody would go to school. We would just read a book, throw it out and do our job.
Now why do doctors take at least 8 years to qualify in the medical field?
Even if I don't go so far as to talk about their relationships when they're adults, they'll be hit right in the face when they reach college or university when they lack those key subjects, or even how to behave around professors and other peers.
Oh America, what will we do with you?
New curriculum for kindergarten: full-day
Today, the bill to extend the kindergarten day has been passed.
Basically, this bill says that instead of having the choice of choosing morning or afternoon kindergarten sessions for a toddler, the normal kindergarten day will be from 9am to 3pm.
In a way, this is good because this makes teaching primary/junior grades much more attractive: the pay should be higher while you retain the same amount of education you have gained in your post-secondary institutions, the children will definitely learn more (assuming the teachers are consistent with their style of teaching) and the school staff can formulate better curricula in the future because they have more resources to work with. All in all, it seems like a pretty good deal.
Before this bill was passed, some parents were concerned about the "new kindergarten" being a type of watered down Grade 1, with tests and evaluations. In reality, this new curriculum is going introduce the basics of language, math, science, arts, physical and personal development through play.
Contrary to the new sex ed curriculum (which has been brought down "from the shelf", as McGuinty cleverly worded) of adding new content, the newly introduced kindergarten curriculum does not add extra material, but it offers more opportunities to learn "more broadly and deeply".
The new curriculum, which was posted on the Ministry of Education's site, is a mix between the existing kindergarten curriculum and a document signed in 2007 designed for the Early Learning for Every Child Today (ELECT). Both emphasize play as a medium for discovering the basics of learning. Full-day kindergarten classes will be led by the teacher and an early childhood educator, where the child will learn the concepts expected to be grasped by the time they reach grade one, and also real-life teaching tips found in the ELECT guidelines.
The new program highlights the significance of oral language to catapult the children into learning reading and writing, and using literacy materials throughout the class to keep the information fresh and consistent.
The Ministry will be training teachers and early childhood educators near the end of April, which is approximately now.
Once again, I believe that this is a great leap forward for the Ministry of Education, so this probably evens out with the remark I made about the establishing of Africentric schools. Other than that though, I think we really need to focus on some important aspects of this curriculum. It doesn't seem that the bill has mentioned anything about nap times for the children. Nap times are important, particularly for children because they do need to have a quiet time to themselves. Not trying to do a comparison check, but in France, they have nap times for adults as well because it has been proven that nap times in the middle of the day prove to be beneficial for the psyche and for the body, thus leading to more productivity.
Some parents worry about the length of the day for children. Actually, there are children who have been attending daycare, and they are there from hours as early as 7am to hours as late as 6pm if their family happens to be a dual-income family. If children as young as 3 can handle it, then I personally do not see the problem with a 4 year old attending a 9 to 3. The skills they learn in full-day are going to benefit the children in the long term, and they will be much better prepared for grade one.
Also, the results, as some parents argue, won't take as long as they think. Just measuring their progress from 10 years ago to now for at least a 5-year curve will be enough. Did the kids really attain these skills? Did they seem to absorb more in the full-day than the half-day?
Besides, I thought half-day kindergarten was pretty much daycare itself. Mine was in Hong Kong, and we didn't have as many playthings like sandboxes and things like that. We did mostly school stuff, like dictations, small tests, writing stories, drawing, etc. Aside from proficiency in English, I was well prepared for grade one regarding math, art, and science skills. Although there will most likely be a difference in progress for children whether the kindergarten is half-day or full-day, I don't believe it's a make-or-break factor. It all depends on how well the teacher can the kids, whether through play or not.
Basically, this bill says that instead of having the choice of choosing morning or afternoon kindergarten sessions for a toddler, the normal kindergarten day will be from 9am to 3pm.
In a way, this is good because this makes teaching primary/junior grades much more attractive: the pay should be higher while you retain the same amount of education you have gained in your post-secondary institutions, the children will definitely learn more (assuming the teachers are consistent with their style of teaching) and the school staff can formulate better curricula in the future because they have more resources to work with. All in all, it seems like a pretty good deal.
Before this bill was passed, some parents were concerned about the "new kindergarten" being a type of watered down Grade 1, with tests and evaluations. In reality, this new curriculum is going introduce the basics of language, math, science, arts, physical and personal development through play.
Contrary to the new sex ed curriculum (which has been brought down "from the shelf", as McGuinty cleverly worded) of adding new content, the newly introduced kindergarten curriculum does not add extra material, but it offers more opportunities to learn "more broadly and deeply".
The new curriculum, which was posted on the Ministry of Education's site, is a mix between the existing kindergarten curriculum and a document signed in 2007 designed for the Early Learning for Every Child Today (ELECT). Both emphasize play as a medium for discovering the basics of learning. Full-day kindergarten classes will be led by the teacher and an early childhood educator, where the child will learn the concepts expected to be grasped by the time they reach grade one, and also real-life teaching tips found in the ELECT guidelines.
The new program highlights the significance of oral language to catapult the children into learning reading and writing, and using literacy materials throughout the class to keep the information fresh and consistent.
The Ministry will be training teachers and early childhood educators near the end of April, which is approximately now.
Once again, I believe that this is a great leap forward for the Ministry of Education, so this probably evens out with the remark I made about the establishing of Africentric schools. Other than that though, I think we really need to focus on some important aspects of this curriculum. It doesn't seem that the bill has mentioned anything about nap times for the children. Nap times are important, particularly for children because they do need to have a quiet time to themselves. Not trying to do a comparison check, but in France, they have nap times for adults as well because it has been proven that nap times in the middle of the day prove to be beneficial for the psyche and for the body, thus leading to more productivity.
Some parents worry about the length of the day for children. Actually, there are children who have been attending daycare, and they are there from hours as early as 7am to hours as late as 6pm if their family happens to be a dual-income family. If children as young as 3 can handle it, then I personally do not see the problem with a 4 year old attending a 9 to 3. The skills they learn in full-day are going to benefit the children in the long term, and they will be much better prepared for grade one.
Also, the results, as some parents argue, won't take as long as they think. Just measuring their progress from 10 years ago to now for at least a 5-year curve will be enough. Did the kids really attain these skills? Did they seem to absorb more in the full-day than the half-day?
Besides, I thought half-day kindergarten was pretty much daycare itself. Mine was in Hong Kong, and we didn't have as many playthings like sandboxes and things like that. We did mostly school stuff, like dictations, small tests, writing stories, drawing, etc. Aside from proficiency in English, I was well prepared for grade one regarding math, art, and science skills. Although there will most likely be a difference in progress for children whether the kindergarten is half-day or full-day, I don't believe it's a make-or-break factor. It all depends on how well the teacher can the kids, whether through play or not.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
How to be a redneck
I was strolling in Wal-Mart and I saw this game. It wasn't on sale: it had a pretty hefty price of around $25. Or $30.
It's intended for audiences 16+.
I completely get why it's for older players, but do we really need to reinforce the stereotypes? Questions in the game include:
You might be a Redneck if... you wash your car more often than you wash your _____.
1. hair
2. kids
3. clothes
You might be a Redneck if... your mother doesn't put on _____ to go grocery shopping.
1. makeup
2. shoes
3. a bra
I get that they're jokes, but even racial jokes do sting. And the thing is, some people might find these jokes funny because they think it's true, and that shows us what type of society we live in. It's a bit sad that even in a multicultural setting like Toronto we would see these types of games. There's pretty much no difference if we call this a game teaching people how to racially profile each other.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
McGuinty fights back
This will be just a quick post.
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty says no to the newly revised sex ed curriculum. He says that although the intentions are good, this is not the way to deliver it, and the general public has reacted negatively to the new curriculum. People need to get used to the idea before implementing it province-wide.
For once, I am happy that we have such a Premier.
Firstly, I have no problem with the intentions. The gist of the new sex ed (as outlined in my previous post below) seems probable. Grade 6 does not seem to be too early for learning about homophobia, and grade 7 doesn't seem too early to talk about the "sexual acts".
Although the studies do show that kids are engaged in sexual activity a lot earlier than we would like them to be, and also the age has almost halved in the last decade, it's definite we should do something about this. However, it only seems that the professionals (aka profs, researchers, scientists) know about this, and parents are left in the dust.
I believe that we should educate the parents on what the issue is at hand before putting in a new curriculum on sex ed. Anyone would be shocked to find out that sex ed is beginning when we are 9 years old. Then afterwards, maybe we can ask the PTA or other parents via e-survey on what they feel would be a good option to educate their kids with.
I really think that the main problem here is that the parents are left behind. It's their kids that'll be affected, so really, we should talk to the parents before hastening a revised curriculum.
Besides. There are other things to fix, like the TTC, which was the best transportation system in the 70s. It's 2010 now, and we're still using little pieces of paper and metal coins. Come on, Toronto, Hong Kong and Singapore are using smart cards. Even the Netherlands are doing something of the same sort.
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty says no to the newly revised sex ed curriculum. He says that although the intentions are good, this is not the way to deliver it, and the general public has reacted negatively to the new curriculum. People need to get used to the idea before implementing it province-wide.
For once, I am happy that we have such a Premier.
Firstly, I have no problem with the intentions. The gist of the new sex ed (as outlined in my previous post below) seems probable. Grade 6 does not seem to be too early for learning about homophobia, and grade 7 doesn't seem too early to talk about the "sexual acts".
Although the studies do show that kids are engaged in sexual activity a lot earlier than we would like them to be, and also the age has almost halved in the last decade, it's definite we should do something about this. However, it only seems that the professionals (aka profs, researchers, scientists) know about this, and parents are left in the dust.
I believe that we should educate the parents on what the issue is at hand before putting in a new curriculum on sex ed. Anyone would be shocked to find out that sex ed is beginning when we are 9 years old. Then afterwards, maybe we can ask the PTA or other parents via e-survey on what they feel would be a good option to educate their kids with.
I really think that the main problem here is that the parents are left behind. It's their kids that'll be affected, so really, we should talk to the parents before hastening a revised curriculum.
Besides. There are other things to fix, like the TTC, which was the best transportation system in the 70s. It's 2010 now, and we're still using little pieces of paper and metal coins. Come on, Toronto, Hong Kong and Singapore are using smart cards. Even the Netherlands are doing something of the same sort.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Sex ed in grade 3
Starting from September 2010 for elementary schools, and September 2011 for high schools, sex ed will be undergoing a revised curriculum for sex ed. This will be the gist of the new curricula:
These controversial changes have parents and even some teachers angry and infuriated. Vilia Milic, a retired Hamilton teacher, says that childhood innocence is rapidly becoming extinct, and that it's becoming problematic. A Christian father says that it is "completely inappropriate" to teach third graders about same sex relationships and all that when it has no relevance to them at this point in their lives.
However, there is relevance because children are hitting puberty earlier than they were in the last decade, so it only makes sense to teach sex ed a grade earlier, says Flicker. Of course, children psychologically develop at different rates, but it's much more beneficial to supply them with sexual knowledge before the sexual activity starts. As most teenagers know, about 1/3 of them have already engaged in sexual activity before they reach high school, which is a pretty scary number.
It's also been discovered that some teachers avoid sexual education because teaching it makes them uncomfortable, and kids ask the darnedest questions that put them on the spot. The province decided to change the lessons by making them more specific so teachers are more prepared to answer questions. To ease off the adolescent awkwardness (pardon the pun), public health workers will be visiting in and out of schools since they have experience with these subjects.
Personally I think it's great that they're going to change the curriculum to keep up with the times. Girls as young as 5 year old are getting their first period; how are we going to explain to them about the birds and the bees? This case is one of the rarest, but currently, the average age for boys to be hit with testosterone is 9, and when they are 13-15, that is when their hormones peak, and sexual pursuit takes up the majority of their frontal cortex. With more and more food additives in the market, it is no wonder that children are experiencing puberty much earlier.
These changes are extremely controversial, and families will have all kinds of opinions ranging from one end of the spectrum to the other, but we must face facts. Children are becoming engaged in sexual activity earlier than we would like them to be, whether we like it or not. To deprive them of this new sexual knowledge is only going to harm them because they don't know what they are getting themselves into. Teenagers nowadays are still debating over whether oral sex is real sex because of the location of penetration. Also, this new knowledge can help children make decisions concerning their sexual lives and resisting peer pressure. Knowledge is power, and depriving of such power to resist is only contradictory to our beliefs.
It won't be easy, and it probably will not go down as smooth as we'd like it to, but this awkward sex ed will hopefully reduce the amount of kids learning sex ed "the hard way".
Most of this post originated from here and here.
- Grade 3: "invisible differences" such as sexual orientation and gender identity
- Grade 4: puberty and its physical/social changes (now taught in grade 5)
- Grade 5: the concept of personal desire ("liking someone in a certain way")
- Grade 6: gender stereotypes; homophobia; personal pleasure in masturbation, vaginal lubrication, and wet dreams
- Grade 7: STDs and prevention measures; sexual acts such as oral/anal sex
- Grade 8: sexual identity and dating violence
- Grade 9: gender-based violence, sexual harassment and more detail about previously covered issues.
These controversial changes have parents and even some teachers angry and infuriated. Vilia Milic, a retired Hamilton teacher, says that childhood innocence is rapidly becoming extinct, and that it's becoming problematic. A Christian father says that it is "completely inappropriate" to teach third graders about same sex relationships and all that when it has no relevance to them at this point in their lives.
However, there is relevance because children are hitting puberty earlier than they were in the last decade, so it only makes sense to teach sex ed a grade earlier, says Flicker. Of course, children psychologically develop at different rates, but it's much more beneficial to supply them with sexual knowledge before the sexual activity starts. As most teenagers know, about 1/3 of them have already engaged in sexual activity before they reach high school, which is a pretty scary number.
It's also been discovered that some teachers avoid sexual education because teaching it makes them uncomfortable, and kids ask the darnedest questions that put them on the spot. The province decided to change the lessons by making them more specific so teachers are more prepared to answer questions. To ease off the adolescent awkwardness (pardon the pun), public health workers will be visiting in and out of schools since they have experience with these subjects.
Personally I think it's great that they're going to change the curriculum to keep up with the times. Girls as young as 5 year old are getting their first period; how are we going to explain to them about the birds and the bees? This case is one of the rarest, but currently, the average age for boys to be hit with testosterone is 9, and when they are 13-15, that is when their hormones peak, and sexual pursuit takes up the majority of their frontal cortex. With more and more food additives in the market, it is no wonder that children are experiencing puberty much earlier.
These changes are extremely controversial, and families will have all kinds of opinions ranging from one end of the spectrum to the other, but we must face facts. Children are becoming engaged in sexual activity earlier than we would like them to be, whether we like it or not. To deprive them of this new sexual knowledge is only going to harm them because they don't know what they are getting themselves into. Teenagers nowadays are still debating over whether oral sex is real sex because of the location of penetration. Also, this new knowledge can help children make decisions concerning their sexual lives and resisting peer pressure. Knowledge is power, and depriving of such power to resist is only contradictory to our beliefs.
It won't be easy, and it probably will not go down as smooth as we'd like it to, but this awkward sex ed will hopefully reduce the amount of kids learning sex ed "the hard way".
Most of this post originated from here and here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
