Bullying and You

Thursday seemed to be a "bully" themed day for me. Not intentionally, and not directly, but a few conversations, and and article came up that made "Bullying" the theme of the day.

Anyone who is friends with me on facebook may have seen that I reposted this article called Rude vs. Mean vs. Bullying that my Student Teaching Coop Teacher posted. I found this article important to repost because I think it is important to be able to distinguish between the three. In this age of Anti-bullying we live in, it seems to me that in an effort to deal with bullying and draw attention to it in order to make it not an overlooked crime, has gotten to the point where any negative behaviour from one child directed toward another child is considered bullying. Because parents and teachers don't want to let it get out of hand, they quash everything and anything that might be even remotely considered bullying. Bugging your best friend about his new haircut might now be quantified as bullying, even though it was meant to be in jest. Schools touting a Zero Tolerance Policy on Bullying may be forced to harsh punishments over such actions if anyone were to report it, whether it be an over concerned parent, a teacher that misinterpreted, or a child that is just trying to do the right thing. Young children especially may have trouble distinguishing between someone being a bully and someone just being rude. The question is then, where do you draw the line, and how do you distinguish mean vs. bullying when talking to a concerned parent? When physical harm comes to a student? Girls are generally more underhanded than that, Female bullies often try to psychologically damage their victims rather than cause physical harm. And waiting until there is some physical damage seems to be too late for me. So where's the line? I don't know, but I think there is value in letting some issues between kids be dealt with by the kids (mom and dad can't always be jumping in to save the day!), but in actual cases of bullying, I think the parents have a lot more control over the situation than the bullied kids do. So being able to differentiate between rude, mean, and bullying actions is important. I feel that rude and mean actions lend themselves to teachable moments, but bullying is something to be stepped in for. If you can't seem to classify, it's probably best to err on the side of caution and help your kids out, of course. But if a kid at school just has no manners, my kids will have to deal with people like that the rest of their lives, best they learn to deal with it now!

The most moving and important conversation of my day happened after I had gotten home from work, showered and threw on my PJs and I decided to have a bowl of cereal before bed. Normally, I would just grab a glass of water and go directly to bed, but I'm glad I changed up the routine last night. Roland went out almost directly after I got home, this isn't unusual, so I didn't think anything of it, but when he got back 1/2 an hour later, and I was sitting on the computer reading news articles, he sat down next to me and said "I think I watched a documentary I shouldn't have watched", he then proceeded to tell me about the documentary Bully, that was released in 2011...

I had seen the movie with my Film Club people a couple of years ago (I think I may have been pregnant), and was really moved by it.

For anyone that is not familiar, this movie follows the lives of a a boy in middle school that is bullied every day, a girl who was bullied to the point of making some really bad choices, a transgender student that is not accepted in her community, and the families of kids that have committed suicide after being incessantly bullied.

I have only ever seen Roland cry once the whole time I have known him, and it was in a situation where he was hammered out of his mind and did something that he really regretted and hurt a friend emotionally without really thinking about what he was doing. Roland was on the verge of tears while talking about the things that happened to the boy in middle school, I think kids are a really big soft spot for Roland. Some of the things the middle schooler, Alex, says are just so heartbreaking that it's tough to even imagine things like this happening to kids anywhere. After having kids threaten to stab him and try to choke him out on the bus, he has a conversation with a school official and says that they are his friends and they were just joking around (there is footage from the bus, and they're not his friends or joking around). The official respond that they are not his friends if they are doing such things to him, to which he responds "If you say these people aren't my friends, then what friends do I have?" Roland was heartbroken to hear a kid say such a thing, and know that he had no one.

Roland wanted me to tell him that things like that don't happen here, and that it's a United States problem, but I really don't think it is. The cases in Bully are the extreme cases, I will give him that, I don't think that things get THAT bad, THAT often, but they happen, and with regularity. But as far as location, I think there is a potential for that to happen anywhere. With the right (or wrong) formula or situations of apathetic teachers, vulnerable students, and inactive parents, etc. it can literally happen in any school setting anywhere. In the case of this movie, most of the bullying took place in affluent communities, entitled kids with no boundaries picking on the weak. I pointed out that in Saskatoon there is a rising per capita rate of gangs in the city, kids are being recruited younger and younger. What is to say that kids aren't being bullied into gangs in schools here? I'm not saying there is, I don't have that kind of intel, but there is definitely a likely potential for it.

Bullying is not just an issue for the victim, it really is a community problem, and in order to limit and stop cases of bullying before they happen, everyone needs to be on board. Parents of both the bully and the bullied, teachers, administrators, bus drivers, chaperones, coaches, ANYONE! Everyone can help out, even if it means not turning a blind eye, being aware, and being accountable. This is really a close issue to my heart and was one of the reasons I went into education.

If you haven't seen the movie, I'd recommend it. As Roland said, it's heartbreaking to the point he wasn't sure if he should have watched it, but I've never believed in the "ignorance is bliss" thing, ignorance is just blind, and I would rather be able to see.

Sharp Objects

Fresh from a brief stay at a psych hospital, reporter Camille Preaker faces a troubling assignment: she must return to her tiny hometown to cover the murders of two preteen girls. For years, Camille has hardly spoken to her neurotic, hypochondriac mother or to the half-sister she barely knows: a beautiful thirteen-year-old with an eerie grip on the town. Now, installed in her old bedroom in her family's Victorian mansion, Camille finds herself identifying with the young victims—a bit too strongly. Dogged by her own demons, she must unravel the psychological puzzle of her own past if she wants to get the story—and survive this homecoming.


This book is what I consider on the high end of "satisfactory". It was good, I enjoyed reading it, but there were a few personal things that stopped me from REALLY enjoying and loving this book. I picked it up because there has been a lot of hype about Gillian Flynn's most recent work, Gone Girl. It's already been slated to become a movie, and I was interested in reading her other stuff before getting on to Gone Girl. I will read it, but not yet. 

The first thing that really stuck out for me was the small town aspect of the story. I am not from a small town, I am a city girl through and through, so I felt while reading about the different aspects of a small town, I just didn't "get it". Perhaps it was that I had never experienced such things, or perhaps Flynn really didn't explain it well enough for me to feel as though I was there. There were some things that I felt had to be exaggerations of how people really are in small towns, but I wasn't entirely sure. Perhaps everyone knows someone in a small town that is in denial about everything going wrong around them? A young woman that was born and raised, and had never left the town, so even though these horrible things are going on she can't imagine moving her family elsewhere? A woman that would state "You don't understand how we feel [about these murdered girls]. You're not a mom." As if one needs to be a parent to feel remorse for a dead child... I don't know. Maybe that's reasonable to see, maybe it's not. Maybe the author was trying to make this town an exception,... in any case, I felt I was missing out on the punchline.

I found the mother-daughter relationships in this book totally heartbreaking. There were the examples in the periphery of mothers who's children were just trophies to be taken pictures of and hung on the wall, not much actual parenting going on. Then there was the main character and her mom. I felt a little piece of myself die when this mother states to her grown up daughter "I think I finally realized why I don't love you". Honestly, this is a horrible woman, and the daughter's not really a catch herself, but my heart still broke into a million pieces just reading those words. I know that these kinds of relationships happen in real life, but man! To have someone write them down, or say them out loud... I was successfully shocked and saddened. I seriously think that that is the cruelest thing you could ever say to a child, even if it's true. Even if s/he doesn't love you either.

The other disconcerting thing was the general, overall inappropriateness in this novel. I understand that this is her debut novel, and in order to make it in a very saturated industry, you need to present something different that hasn't been done before. So... I get it. But this main character woman is just slightly older than me, and she's hanging out with her 13-year old sister, doing drugs with her, and sleeping with her (past the age of maturity) teenage friends. It's pretty gross... and seriously, she needs to grow the hell up! What is wrong with this girl? I could not imagine even considering doing the things this girl does that are so juvenile and beneath her. Does this go back to the small town thing I don't understand, or is her sister just THAT manipulative (entirely possible, but still)

I don't really read much Mystery, but I think this is classified as one... little girls are murdered, things happen, it's solved in the end, yippee-ky-eh! Mystery novel. So that also may be a failing of mine. This book seems like it's a bit different from most mysteries, but the plot devices are still relatively similar.

The main character wasn't totally awful, but she was very flawed. You root for her even if she does insane things. She also is a pretty sympathetic character, with her mental illness background and good intentions, just very flawed.

I plan on reading more of Flynn's stuff in the future, and this one is worth a read. It's a compelling story, just be prepared for the difficult themes and topics.

The Rosie Project

Meet Don Tillman.
Don is getting married.
He just doesn't know who to yet.
But he has designed a very detailed questionnaire to help him find the perfect woman.

One thing he already knows, though, is that it's not Rosie.
Absolutely, completely, definitely not.

Don Tillman is a socially challenged genetics professor who's decided the time has come to find a wife. His questionnaire is intended to weed out anyone who's unsuitable. The trouble is, Don has rather high standards and doesn't really do flexible so, despite lots of takers, he's not having much success in identifying The One.

When Rosie Jarman comes to his office, Don assumes it's to apply for the Wife Project - and duly discounts her on the grounds she smokes, drinks, doesn't eat meat, and is incapable of punctuality. However, Rosie has no interest in becoming Mrs Tillman and is actually there to enlist Don's assistance in a professional capacity: to help her find her biological father.

Sometimes, though, you don't find love: love finds you...


I love, LoVe, LOVE this book! So many reasons. I really hope I don't miss any, but I am also going to make a great effort to not spoil anything because ALL of you should read this if you haven't already. I think a male or female audience can appreciate it (although there may be a bit too much of a love story for some men, but I think the hilarity and social comments would make up for it). Young, old, no matter what profession, no matter what socioeconomic status... everyone should be able to get something from this book.

First of all, I like that ambiguity of the main character's "Aspergers" status. It is suggested to him early in the novel by a friend, but he doesn't catch on, and doesn't confirm or deny the suggestion. I like this because it isn't definitive and it doesn't pigeon-hole or label Don in any way. We get a bit of a better feel for him, and I'm sure we all know someone like him that we can relate to, but without judging him. It sorta reminds me of Sheldon from Big Bang Theory, it has been suggested (by fans, more than the creators) that Sheldon might have Aspergers, but nothing definitive. He's just Sheldon.

He makes some great points on the ludicrousness of many social conformities that are considered normal and how the literal translations of thinks like "Jackets are required" in a dress code really can be quite confusing. It really makes a statement about how ambiguous a straight-forward comment may seem and how silly some social conformities are.

I really found all of the characters well rounded and their motivations were very interesting and realistic. I also loved how almost all of them had some hypocritical aspects to them (eg. a feminist that wants to be told she is beautiful, a social drinker who wants to find someone that abstains from alcohol.... etc). I think the hypocrisy of people is something that we all like to pretend isn't there and it is something that we don't like (or try) to see in ourselves.

Although this book is fiction, I also really liked the "unconditional love" theme, not just in the main characters, but also in friendships and other relationships throughout the book. It gives me hope that there is someone for everyone, and that lots of people can look past the social awkwardness of others. It made me evaluate my own approach to socially awkward situations. I think I have always been good at situations in school, or people who very obviously are living with a disability, but I think sometimes in situations where others are borderline "normal" I get a bit frustrated. Something to really look out for in the future. Yay for self-evaluation!

I really am concerned about saying too much, or not enough. But I think I am going to end it there. If you have questions, please ask, but know that I would recommend this book to you no matter who you are.

P.S. I'm sorry if I built this book up quite a bit, and thus made expectations really hight. I am aware that it is entirely possible that I might be in love with this book so much because the last one I read was so awful. But I really did like it! And you should still read it... really... go read it...

I am Half Done Cooking this Kid...

20 weeks today!

Wow, the time has really flown by on this pregnancy. As my sister said last week "time flies when you're not puking!" And it's true. Oh, so true.

I had my ultrasound last friday, and being that I've been blessed with one perfect pregnancy, and this one is considered low-risk as well, I don't normally get nervous about such appointments. I am definitely feeling movement by now, so I know that my kid is in there. But once I got into the office, I got a bit nervous. I told Roland this, and he asked me why, and I said I didn't know, just anticipation I guess.

So we were called into the office and I hopped up on the table, pulled up my shirt and scooted my waistband down a bit and she gooed up my belly and away we went! This tech was a bit different than our last one. Last time, she took all of her pictures first and then gave us a tour of our baby. This time, she did the tour first, which caught me slightly off guard. Everything looked and sounded good. His/her heartbeat was good and strong at a rate of 152 bpm. Ten fingers, ten toes... peachy. After most of her pictures were done, she asked me to get up and go to the bathroom, because she was having difficulty getting a good picture of the heart because apparently they like to have it taken from a particular angle and baby wasn't cooperating. Once I was back from the bathroom, she was out of the room, and I asked Roland if he should be getting back to work, he said that was probably a good idea. When the tech came in, Roland asked if there was much left to do, and she said she just had to try again to get a picture of the heart and that the doctor was going to come in. IMMEDIATE PANIC! My heart sank and I said "that doctor's only come in when there's a problem", the tech didn't confirm or deny this, but said that the doctor just likes to see everyone. I pointed out that I didn't see a doctor last time after my ultrasound and she didn't respond to this. Roland asked her if he should stay, and all she said was that it was up to him. He looked at me and then said he would stay. I don't know if it was because my eyes were pleading for him to stay or if he knew I was doing all that was in my power to not cry, but either way I must have communicated to him that I needed him.

Those next 10 minutes were agonizing. She gooed up my belly again and tried to get the picture she needed, then cleaned me off and told me she was going to go get the doctor. She was probably only out of the room for 3 minutes but it seemed like an eternity. Roland and I didn't say anything in this time I don't think. When the doctor came in, he introduced himself and then went on to state that our baby's growth was good, and everything seemed normal but because the tech couldn't get that perfect picture of the heart he wanted me to come back in in about 3-4 weeks. I confirmed that there wasn't a problem with the baby, and he said no, from what they could see everything looked normal.

But I'm not totally convinced. I wonder if because I was clearly already stressed or something, but I wonder if because I have to come back again in a few weeks anyway if they are just going to wait until then to drop whatever bomb they had the doctor come in for. Or if the tech saw something wrong with the heart, but couldn't get a good enough picture of it to confirm, so they didn't tell me then, but will wait until they have that better picture of it to tell us... Or maybe it's just a technicality that the doctor has to tell me he wants me back for another appointment... Or maybe this doctor does just see everyone...

In any case I will be drilling my family doctor at my appointment tomorrow. These radiologists should really all stick together with procedure, either see EVERYONE after their appointments or only see those with troubles... I don't like all of this uncertainty and inconsistancy...

I hate selfies, especially if you can see the camera or phone in the picture, but it felt necessary for this post. This'll probably be the only selfie like this you ever get. Ew... (and please excuse the disaster that is my house...)

At A Loss for Words

In a “he said, she said” story, the writer always gets the last word.

She is a writer, established and successful, with a full life and supportive friends. Then he walks into a book signing and back into her life 30 years after he broke her heart. This time, things seem different. The pair reconnects through emails, messages and fragments of conversation. But love leaves her with a nasty case of writer’s block. Looking for inspiration in the texts around her -- optimistic horoscopes, evasive fortune cookies and the inane suggestions from books on writer’s block -- she tries to find a way through the relationship that has seemingly stolen her gift for language.

Spinning us through the whirlwind love of her nameless protagonist, award-winning author Diane Schoemperlen weaves a stylish, innovative novel out of to-do lists and text messages. Exploring the different emotional languages spoken by men and women, At A Loss For Words is a charming take on the modern romance, warm and witty right through to its surprising and delicious resolution.

This was one of the worst books I have read in a long time. Right up there with 50 Shades of Grey, without the stigma of being Erotica. This book is only just under 200 pages long, but took me a month to read because it was so terrible that I had no motivation to read it. The guilt of not posting anything remotely bookish was getting to me, so I buckled down and read more than half of it friday night just to get it over with. So I am sorry it took so long for a book related post.

This is one of the many books that I have on the one bookshelf I own that is completely unread books. I bought this one way back when I was at McNally and scooped it up before it was returned to the publisher. I should have just let it go. The worst part about it was that I feel that I was mislead into what I was going to be reading. I don't know if the cover picture is too small or whatever, but there is a little circle that states the National Post describes it as "A laugh-out-loud anti-love letter". So I thought it was going to be an author writing witty letters to an ex, and they are all like "You are an ass because..." except hilarious and well written. Or perhaps an "I love you, but you are screwing up my life..." to this ex that walked back into her life...

But no. No no no no no no no...

THIS book is literally a "I said..." paragraph followed by a "You said..." paragraph that documents their entire relationship. Literally almost EVERY paragraph starts with either "I said" or "You said". Ever heard of "Said is DEAD"? Yeah, this book KILLED "said". Butchered it and threw it's guts all over the street for the neighbours to see. So. Effing. Bad. This is one of those books you want to make sure that no one with impressionable minds gets ahold of. Keep it away from your middle year students that are learning to use more interesting words than said, they may use this as ammo that a book "could" just use only the word said to describe conversation and actually get published. And keep this away from your friend, family member, coworker, etc. that thinks they can be an author but really probably can't. They will read this crap and be like "if this can get published I can totally get published! They just said 'He said', 'She said"' back and forth for 190 pages! I can do that!" Gross. It made this book HORRIBLY boring. Honestly, had they just gotten rid of that aspect of the book I probably could have finished the book in a couple of days. The plot was still shitty, I still would have hated it, but it would have been easier to force myself to read.

This book was also supposed to be funny, according to the National Post, but it really wasn't. The first three quarters of it was just pathetic. This woman was head over heels for a guy that treated her like crap, and she just ignored all the warning signs of him being an ass, and payed attention to horoscopes and shit that made it sound like things were going to look up. So lame. Not funny at all. I wanted to punch her through the pages of this book. It was frustrating to see this woman getting walked all over and didn't realize it. Much of the "She said"s were correspondences over emails that he never replied to, phone messages he never returned, but when he finally did get back to her, he had possible, even probable reasons he didn't get back to her right away, but I realized early that these excuses were ones that would be hard to disprove without outright calling him a liar. I'm not sure if I picked up on this pattern earlier than the author expected or if it was intended to make this woman out to look like a twitterpated idiot, but either way, it was BAD. The one other consideration I had on this issue was perspective. Was there actually an issue with their communication? Or was the fact that she was an unemployed author with writer's block and the only perspective we get in the novel, and he was employed in another city? So she had oodles of time on her hands to write him emails, but he was working and really didn't have any time to respond. Something that she overlooked because she has so much free time herself that she figured everyone else did too? Who knows. I think it is just a thin attempt on my part to find a redeeming quality in this book.

It was also really annoying that I don't think this woman knows how to write a male character. In the beginning of the relationship, this guy would say romantic lovey-dovey things that I don't think ANY straight man has ever said to anyone, EVER, in his entire life. Like, even Nicholas Sparks wouldn't go as far as this chick goes. They were the types of things that I think some woman may want their boyfriends/husbands/partners/whatever to say, but if they did, you would laugh at them or ask them if they were feeling ok. However I did determine early that if he turned out to be gay in the end, I would forgive this point. But no, that's not what happened. This guy is supposedly straight...

The kicker at the end, that made me roll my eyes and hate this book even more (and yes, I am going to tell you the ending, because I do not want ANYONE to read this book. Ever. So, if I spoil the ending, perhaps if anyone out there had the slightest inkling to read it they would think twice), is that it turns out this guy is married. So clearly, this relationship was going no where for him, and she had these delusions that he was going to leave his wife and kid for her. What a moron. And this guy is an asshole. Seems fitting for a book that was so crappy. Although it explains why he wasn't corresponding with her ever...

I really hope this story isn't based on the author's real life, because really, that would be just sad. I found myself wondering if it was autobiographical and she attempted to make it humourous in order to get over this horribly failed relationship. It's definitely possible, but I hope it's not true.

There were two little teensie redeeming things. That I must mention because honestly, being that this book was SO awful, it was good to have a few words that made me not hate life a little bit. The first one is when she is listening to the radio in her car and she purposly mishears the lyric from Robert Palmer's Addicted to Love and sings it "Might as well face it, you're a dickhead in love". I enjoyed it. The other was a word I had never come across before. I like to learn new words, and now I suppose I can't say I didn't get anything out of this book... the word was avuncular. Do you know what this word means? I thought it was interesting, and not a word one would hear often if they have heard it before. Dictionary it if you aren't familiar (I'm not gunna do all the work for you! :) )

Ultimate recommendation? Never. No. Not in a million years. DO NOT READ THIS BOOK. I told you the only 2 good things in it, so you are covered. Don't waste your time. Avoid this book. It is not good for anyone. 

Back into Preggo Clothes

Just this past weekend I started wearing my work maternity pants to my night shifts.

With Rosalie's pregnancy, I stalled as long as I could before getting into any maternity clothes. Last time, I fought with my regular jeans until it was absolutely impossible to do them up. In hindsight, this was a bit silly considering that when I put my maternity jeans on I felt like I could have slept in them they were so comfy. I am also pretty sure I was into my 6th month before I even got my work pants altered in order to become maternity pants. Now I don't know how I survived doing that, because I cannot do up the fly of my work pants at all... or if I do get it up, in about 5 minutes it's back down again. 

I am still hesitant to break out my casual maternity clothes though. Mostly, I think, because I wore out my maternity jeans last time. I probably shouldn't have worn them in the 36-40 week range, but I did because I didn't want to go buy a new pair when I could be popping out this kid any day. That also seems silly in hindsight because the plan was always to have one more after Rosalie, so I wouldn't have had to go buy new ones for this pregnancy. After I got over my denial of my growing belly, I think I started wearing my mat jeans last time when I was about 5 months along, which seemed way overdue at the time, but I don't want to jump on that wagon too early this time in fear of wearing out these pants again. I really don't want to wear out my jeans 2 months earlier than I am due and then have to buy another pair that will only get worn those last two months, because I don't plan on being pregnant again after this.

So I'm looking for indicators that you think point to the fact that I need to hop into my maternity clothes. Do you think it's just as soon as regular clothes get uncomforable? Or is it just as soon as a bump is apparent? (because we know that mat clothes flatter that bump so much!) Whaddya think? 

Hawaii and I are Meant for Eachother

About 3 hours after landing on Canadian soil I realized that Canadian winters and I do not really get along.

It's not just the cold that makes me say this, but I will confess that that was the first deciding factor that I came across since leaving Hawaii. Walking out into the cold on the tarmac in Edmonton was not fun, especially because we didn't have our winter jackets with us, they were being brought to us at the Saskatoon airport by my brother who was picking us up.

The next clue came after I had a shower before going to bed that night. I went about and did my nighttime routine and then looked at myself in the mirror and my cheeks (the FACE ones, for the record) were bright red and dry. UGH! I HATE dry skin, and within 12 hours of being in Hawaii my skin was healed from all of this dry cold we get in Saskatchewan, and within 6 hours of returning the dry skin is back.

And my cold is back. about 24 hours after being in Saskatoon, my cold is back. So stupid.

And don't think we didn't actually talk about moving to Hawaii while we were there. Roland even went to the point of comparing wages of our professions (He looked up teaching for me, but to be completely honest I would take a job at the jail there if I couldn't teach. It is SO funny and little and low security. We saw all the inmates sitting outside for lunch one day, no beach volleyball this year though, and seriously, their barbed-wire fence is waist high. It seriously is the only jail I kinda actually WANT to work in) and not surprisingly the wages are much lower there than in Saskatchewan, or mainland US for that matter. Yet the living expenses are so high...

But we also talked about the flipside. It is still the United States. I like the direction that ObamaCare is taking, but it is still MILES (or Kilometers, for us Canadians ;) ) from being as good as the Canadian Healthcare system. The jobs we would get would probably have benefits, but I still don't really support that whole system. Also we saw the aftermath of a car accident and Roland pointed out that something like that can bankrupt a family for the person at fault, and lots of people don't have good insurance on that front.

So really, we can't move to Hawaii. But maybe eventually it can be our retirement plan, just like my Dad's. Save up money from now until then, then buy a house and live there 6 [cold] months out of the year. I mean, seriously, the -67°C windchill that is being forcasted today is not making a great case for staying in Saskatchewan for the winter...