MVOTD: VS (Day 265)

When it comes to Music Video of the Day, which is really more like Music Video of the Month now, I want to finish the competition of best music videos...from January. Here is my attempt to plow through them in order to finish it. There will be a winner.

First up. Block B's Nillili Mambo versus New Kids on the Block's Step by Step. Block B, with a more energetic song and video wins.

Second there's ZE:A's Mazeltov versus TVXQ's Purple Line. I made the mistake of watching Mazeltov first, because within 15 seconds of starting Purple Line I was like, "TVXQ wins". If I had watched them in the opposite order, it would have been a much more even match. TVXQ kind of revs you up for ZE:A, not the other way around. Purple Line wins.

Third on the list, and last in round two are G-Dragon's One of a Kind versus Psy featuring MC Hammer with Gangnam Style. G-Dragon has an actual music video which means that there is just more going on in his video despite the combined powers of Psy and MC Hammer. Thus, One of a Kind wins.

Round Two completed. Onto round three.

-----------------------------------

TVXQ's Balloons versus David Bisbal's Como Olvidar. There's a lot of ridiculous in Como Olvidar. A lot. ...But there's more in Balloons. ...Jaejoong's inability to act cutesy. Jaejoong giving a child a dirty look. Yunho in a confused cheeta/tiger costume. Penguins. Tie bowties. Yeah, Balloons wins.

Super wins.

Turning Cultural Expectations Around - Rape Culture

Today, I wanted to take a break from the Bill 18 discussion. It's so heavy, and there are a lot of articles for me to read before I formulate more opinion on it. Therefore, I was thinking of reviewing Super Junior M's latest song Breakdown. However, someone posted this lovely article on Facebook.

The article, 5 Ways We Can Teach Men Not To Rape, is an excellent reminder to look not to the victim but to the perpetrator to change the problem. By telling women it's their problem, we say that men cannot control themselves nor are responsible for their actions (this point is not actually made in the article, but is part of the problem). That's wrong. We can, and should look to positive solutions to one of the worst crimes a person can commit. I think the suggestions are fairly good ones.

Have a good day.

Manitoba and Bill 18 Con't

I wish I knew better how to formulate my thoughts. Here goes though.

According to the media, Steinbach is the only area opposing Bill 18. The reporting on it (the Winnipeg Free Press anyway) started respectfully and balanced. Then it ever so quickly became a hunt to see what illogical sounding things Steinbach, and its people, were saying about Bill 18. The front page yesterday was about one of the Soutland pastors giving a sermon on February 24, 2013 which included a dire warning about Bill 18. Having attended Southland once or twice, I was not at all surprised that the pastor was that excited about the topic. He gets excited about every topic, Biblical or non-biblical, so that he got uppity about Bill 18 is no surprise. My point on that though, is just that everyone who doesn't know that will jump to the conclusion that the paper wants them to, which is that he is a bad opinionated man leading a large force against the valiant Bill 18. The real point I wanted to make was that the Winnipeg Free Press is looking for news about this topic (that sermon is a week and a half old). They want to find dirt on Steinbach, and if it makes Steinbach look bad, then it makes better news. I'm disappointed that the newspaper would do that, because I see it as a real debate that could have been done respectfully.

Why do I see it as a real debate? SCHS, the school which had an information night on Bill 18 where 1200 people showed up (10% of Steinbach), has stated that Bill 18 infringes on religious freedom. The Southland pastor said so too. As an assertion, the why and how need to be explained. I think part of what they mean is that forcing schools to provide Gay-Straight Alliances (if children ask for it) is supporting a gay lifestyle, which the Christian sourcebook -the Bible- says is wrong. Loving and supporting people is not wrong though. Having issues is not wrong. It is saying that there is no issue when there is an issue that is wrong, and I'm not just talking about Bill 18. A more 'extreme' example? Saying it's okay to commit adultery. It's not, but you are still supposed to care about the person. The other thing I think "Steinbach" is saying is that they are being ignored for being a faith community. How many protestors does it take before politicians reconsider a bill? 1000? 10,000? If Christians and people of other faiths get ignored now, how much easier will it be for them to be ignored later? I don't think their worry about having their rights being infringed on is wrong. People already expect religious beliefs to be held privately, not publically. That in itself is an infringement on religious freedom. It's saying, "I can be who I want to be as long as I don't inconvenience someone who has a different, or popular, viewpoint." So... it's saying I need to pretend I don't have a religion. Thanks social mores.

____________________________________________________

One thing that's unrelated to the debate but rather interesting. I was looking at a print out of the Charter of Right and Freedoms in a local library and found this. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects religious freedom. It doesn't mention sexual preference.

Manitoba and Bill 18

Looking it up on a search engine, "Bill 18" is a really vague search. Therefore a number of variable terms may be added to the search. "Manitoba", "Education Act", or "Anti-bullying". Manitoba's Bill 18 has become an issue thanks to about 5 inches of the bill's writing. The bill summaries what bullying is, as well as what educators should do about it. This vague "Bill 18" has become a big issue in Manitoba, with the rural Southeast taking on the government. People in the urban areas don't understand why the Southeast is opposed and the Southeast doesn't understand why others seem to support it.

The bill includes, "hurt feelings" as bullying. That particular wording is the best example of how vague the definition of bullying is. A Winnipeg Free Press article supporting the bill states,

"Bill 18 certainly has a broader definition, and there is concern among parents and educators about whether it will require every off-handed comment, sideways glance and unintended offence to be punished."

This is true, and a great summary of concerns. I have read that parents and educators are concerned that they or their children could be sued or get into legal trouble for off-handed comments. Children are great at being mean, and may tease each other for any reason; their height - too tall or too short, their smell, the amount of parents they have, what they wear, what they eat, how quiet they are - the list goes on and on. I am actually surprised that more people are not concerned about this. This vagueness puts all people at risk of getting into trouble with the law, and also weakens the travesty of true bullying by including with systematic bullying things that can be unintended and one time only. True bullying definitely needs to be dealt with, but does it mean that people, children in particular, need to "walk on eggshells" with each other? How will we, or they, know what bullying constitutes?

I am also surprised that this is what they put forward, since it requires adults to govern children's behaviour. Not just adults, but educators. It asks educators to govern children's behaviour. As someone who has worked in the school system, I wonder how this can be done. Educators can suggest and discipline but it is always up to the individual to comply.

Teachers are given classrooms of 20 children or more. Can they stop their teaching day to deal with this vague definition of bullying, with the miriad of complaints that would become "bullying" (I'm thinking of grade one's here, who tell on each other for everything). They are busy enough teaching and disciplining as it is. How much energy can they put into new bullying rules?

 Can the province provide enough recess help to supervise children into not teasing others? I don't think so, because even supervised children are mean to each other, and I don't think that having a horde of supervisors would be healthy. Children need to learn how to navigate life, and they do a lot of that on their own. It is our job to teach them how they should live, and their job to apply it. Or rather, it is not a teacher's primary job to teach children morals or how to treat another human being. That education primarily comes from the home, from their parents and siblings, grandparents, friends, and family. Schools assist.

I guess for me, on this topic of vagueness, what I want is either a more clear definition of "bullying", or a better definition of the process that complaints will go through. I want a filter put in place that sorts real bullying out from human failure, because it's a real concern.

More to come.