Archive
Don’t Be That Guy Campaign Comes to Calgary
Finally! A campaign that focuses on the perpetrator instead of the victim. In November of 2010 Edmonton 
launched the first Don’t be that Guy Campaign. Now Calgary is following in their footsteps and is launching it here. This week you’ll start to notice some in your face posters, such as the one to the left, on CTrains, buses, in nightclub, and in the universities. The posters are mostly targeting men, and will appear in nightclub and university washrooms, as well as other high traffic sites around town.
The DBTGC is being launched by the ‘Sexual Assault Voices of Calgary’. An organization that seeks to change societal thinking: “We are looking at societal change here, it’s important to remember this is not just a police initiative, this involves so many different organizations” says detective Paul Wyatt of the Calgary Police Service’s Sex Crimes Unit. The partners he is refering to includes: Association of Alberta Sexual Assault Services, Alberta Health Service, Calgary Communities Against Sexual Abuse, Calgary Police Service, Calgary Sexual Health Centre, Canadian Red Cross, Connect Family and Sexual Abuse Network and HomeFront.
The in your face campaign is aimed at Men, 18-24, in order to not only take the onus off the victim but bring men into the conversation about sexual assault. The message that this campaign is trying to get across is clear: “if someone is incapacitated by alcohol or drugs they cannot give consent, and sex without consent is sexual assault.” Police Chief Rick Hanson hopes to push the message home as well “You can no longer hide behind the mistaken belief that it’s okay to use drugs or alcohol,as an excuse, or think because a woman did not give you a ‘no’ answer, that it means ‘yes’.”
On every poster the message ” Sex Without Consent = Sexual assault” appears at the bottom. The SAV website also pushes the message that if you have sex without consent, it’s sexual assault:
” sexual assault is any form of sexual activity forced on someone else without that person’s consent. Force can be physical, or through the use of threats, bullying, manipulation, alcohol/drugs or harassment. Any unwanted sexual activity–including kissing, touching, groping, flashing, oral sex, intercourse, photographing, etc.–under ANY circumstances is sexual assault.”
The website includes a section that talks about what consent is and what consent is not. For example, it reads: “Consent is simple. Just ask.” and in contrast to that reads: “Consent is not obtained if the person changes her/his mind. And a person can change his or her mind at ANY time.”
The campaign is meant to change the minds of men, reminding them that the fight against sexual assault involves them as well, and if they see it they too need to step up and say something. “This is a multi-scale approach, not only do we want to get the message out there 
that it’s never the victims fault, you weren’t in the wrong place, you weren’t drinking too much, you weren’t dressed the wrong way. But we want to target those men to tell them that this behaviour is not acceptable. We also want to target the men who are with them. Those who can stand up to their friends and remind them if you do this you are going to go to jail” says Wyatt. Reminding us that this is a community effort. If we see something we need to stand up against it, and once and for all shake this idea that somehow a women brought on her assault because she was wearing a short skirt and high heels.
We put the onus on the victim too much in our community today, sending the message to perpetrators that it is OK, as a result causing more damage to the victim. As a victim of assault I know that we begin to internalize these feelings. You start to feel that maybe it really is your fault, maybe if you hadn’t had that one extra drink, or worn that short skirt, or walked down that dark street alone, or in my case rollerbladed down that dark pathway, it wouldn’t have happened to us. But it does happen to us. “As a community, it is important for us to stand together and say this type of behaviour is not acceptable and the consequences are too great.” says Laurie Blahitka, of Alberta Health Services.
Not only is this a message about consent, consequences, and victim blaming, it’s also a way to bring men into the conversation. It’s about making men part of the solution too. This is so important because if we remain divided, we’ll never win. As a victim, and an advocate I am so glad to see that people are finally starting to realize it’s going to take the cooperation of all kinds of organizations and people to start changing the minds of society.
I will leave you with a great quote from the SAVCalgary website :
If we keep thinking about the sexual abuses and sexual assaults committed by men as a ‘women’s issue’, we’re not going to do much about truly preventing that violence. The women you care about–and your kids–should live and grow up in a society where male violence against women is not acceptable. Not legally, not morally, not socially.
TO Police Advice:Don’t want to be Assaulted? Don’t Wear Your School Uniform on Transit
So the Toronto Police are back at it again, they are giving women bad advice on how to not be sexually assaulted. I can’t help but wonder if they learned nothing from the demonstrations that took place in Toronto last April in regards to Victim Blaming.
Apparently there is an issue with a pervert who is looking up young women’s skirts on Toronto Transit, specifically targeting students from a near by private school. The school principle passed on some advice to students, via email, from the investigating officer from the Toronto Police department. That advice? tell them not to wear their school uniforms, the skirts, on public transit. If they had,for example, jeans or sweatpants on, it wouldn’t be an issue.
Once again we have this idea that if the victim would just do more to prevent the crime it never would have happened in the first place. No one stops to think to themselves that perhaps it never would have happened if there had been no pervert to begin with. Or perhaps there would be no pervert if we actually started to target young men and inform them that this type of behaviour is not acceptable. But what am I thinking? Boys will be boys, right?
These are reinforcing the belief in young women that they are provoking sexual assault by wearing certain types of clothing.
I don’t live in Toronto, I live in Calgary and I take our transit 3 times a week. And I hate taking transit in the early mornings when the trains are pact tight. I particularly find it uncomfortable when I find myself on one of the older trains that aren’t designed for standing room. At least once a week someone either: makes a comment to me about my body, or touches me when it’s crowded in a clearly inappropriate manner. In one instance last year I caught a guy taking a picture of my legs whilst I was standing on the train. In addition to this I hear stories everyday from someone about how something inappropriate has happened to them while they were taking transit.
This is in no way the fault of Calgary Transit and in every way the fault of main stream culture. How do we get across the message that looking up people’s skirts, taking pictures of them, touching them, or doing anything to them without their consent, is not OK? To me it seems just logical, if person A doesn’t want to be touched person B should keep their hands to themselves.
The point is that sexual assault or harassment has nothing to do with what women are wearing and everything to do with the pervert. I am beyond tired with this false belief that if you wear a skirt, or go out drinking, or walk down a dark street alone, or do any other ‘risky’ behaviour, that this puts you more at risk for sexual assault. Women of all shapes, sizes, and situations are sexually assaulted everyday. One study sites that 21% of women who were abused by a partner were pregnant when they were abused. I invite you to please explain to me how a pregnant women was asking for it, or brought on that abuse herself? The same study says that 40% of women with disabilities have reported being raped or assaulted. Again I would please like someone to explain to me how they brought on their own assaults?
I am not saying that there are no preventative steps women can take to protect themselves, but I am not sure why we always focus on the victim instead of the perpetrator. I am not sure why better advice was not given to the young school aged women who are being harassed on the bus. For example, pulling out your cell phone and calling police, informing the bus driver what is going on, public shaming “hey dude in blue hat, could you please stop looking up my skirt? That would be fantastic, thanks”, as a bystander you could ask the victim if they alright, do they need help? Simply telling young women to not wear skirts is counterproductive.
If people want to talk about preventative measures women can take tell them: to not wear both earbuds when walking alone, limit chatting on your cell well walking, be aware of your environment. But to tell them that wearing jeans instead of a skirt will keep them safe is just plain dumb.
In response to this story, according to the above link, Constable Wendy Drummond said that the school principal did not relay the officers words correctly. She says that the advice to women was that they should: travel in pairs, use panic buttons on the subway, do not discuss their travel plans in public, and that both sexes should not wear their school uniforms in public. But she apparently did not deny that the officer had remarked that if the girls had been in jeans it never would have happened.
Even if this is how it did in fact go down it doesn’t matter. In either context the officers advice sucks, and so does the principles. Don’t talk about your travel plans in public? What is that? Is the world so scary that we can’t even talk to our friends about plans? It still also places the onus on the victim. The idea that i can and should be doing more to prevent myself from getting raped.
Nor the principle or the police officer should be perptuating victim blaming ideology to young women, it’s pretty disgusting.
Rick Hanson Speaks to MRU Students
Today I had a great opportunity! I was able to attend a lecture given by
Calgary’s chief of Police, Rick Hanson. Hanson has an impressive, to say the least, policing record. Including, 36 years of policing experience. Over half of that time was spent in senior positions, either in the Calgary police service, or in the RCMP. He has been Calgary’s chief of police since 2007 and has given his continued support to programs that help a variety of Calgarians. Hanson has been involved in youth intervention programs- such as the ones I am about to talk about, and has been involved in programs that are close to my own heart, those that help victims of domestic violence, and sexual assault.
The chief gave a guest lecture this afternoon to Mount Royal University students, hosted by the Sociology Student Society, on the role that Calgary’s police service plays in preventing youth crime, and rehabilitating youth that have headed down the wrong path or are heading down the wrong path. He spoke about how youth issues have been front and center for the four years that he has been the chief in Calgary. The police department decided that it was time to examine how to address youth crime issues, and more importantly how to prevent youth crime.
While Rick acknowledged that policing and first response will always be the first job and priority of the Calgary police he also was quick to point out that prevention and treatment is something that can’t be ignored. “We must have a first response team, but there is a whole world of prevention out there” Hanson emphasized. The question then becomes, how do you target these young people who come from all different classes, and circumstances? The answer came out of research, lots of it, that all came to the same conclusion. Get to kids early, elementary school early. “The fact is that when people are victimized they want that person to be caught and punished, but ultimately they would prefer they hadn’t become a victim at all.”
This September the Calgary police service, in conjunction with both school boards, and the education department at Mount Royal University, funded by the province, rolled out a new curriculum in select schools to teach kids (and parents) about where they can go if they get victimized. Teaching them to avoid strangers without terrifying them of the world around them. That sort of thing.
While educating kids through a curriculum is the most recent addition in their youth prevention tactics it is not the only program they have going. Hanson says that 2 years ago they began speaking with teachers and social workers. Through their conversations with teachers, social workers, and other youth workers the MASST, Multi Agency School Support Team, was born. The MASS team consists of a police officer and a social worker who, through the help of the school, identify youth that are exhibiting anti social behaviour, offending behaivour, or have signs of victimization.
“Look, we know that 5% of young offenders commit 80% of youth crime. Why wouldn’t we target these kids and invest in them and this type of prevention?” Hanson told students. As an example he sites an 11 year old boy who started skipping school in grade 4. By the time this young boy reached grade 6 he had missed one full year of school. When the MASS team showed up at the house the boy was home, with his 9 year old younger brother, and their mother was still asleep. Upon investigation it was discovered the mother had chronic depression and once she received help and got a better handle on things at home the young boy not only started to attend school, he ended that year on the honour roll (his younger brother paralleled his success).
Another initiative that caught my attention is the plans for a ‘Child Advocacy Center.’ The center is set to open across from the Alberta Children’s hospital, near the Ronald McDonald house. This facility will house everything needed to respond to child victimization in one building . The police, Crown, Alberta health services, and Alberta Youth services all in one building reducing the chance of repeat victimization that children could face by being dragged from one place to another. As it stands today when a child is victimized often their parents have to take them to see all these people which results in dragging their children back and forth across the city, and ultimately having them tell their story multiple times. The idea behind this facility is to put an end to that, and have one central location where a child and their parents can receive help.
Hanson is also a supporter of the safe jail initiative. “I am a firm believer that we don’t need more prisons, we need more health beds.” Currently it is estimated that 50% of people in jails are suffering from an undiagnosed mental illness, though some would estimate that it is even higher then this. The problem is you can’t diagnose someone who is addicted to drugs. The answer, he argues, is a safe jail. A jail that is run as if it were a secured detox center. Once someone goes through detox, and gets that diagnosis you have an increased chance of getting them the help they need and curbing their part in the revolving door that jails appear to be. He argues that no one wakes up one morning and says to themselves “hmmm, I think I am going to try crystal meth today”. Instead, Hanson argues that addictions are created to trap people and if you get someone off that addiction they stand a chance.
The presentation today was both informative and eye opening. I was surprised, and thrilled, to learn just how many preventative programs are run by the Calgary police service. I will admit that often I get frustrated when I hear certain types of stories in the media and often think to myself “cops, they think they can just arrest themselves out of anything don’t they?” But today’s presentation opened my eyes to an entire world of policing that I hadn’t given much thought to in the past but has obviously impacted my own communities in positive ways ensuring that some crimes will never happen. And ultimately answering my question. No, police officers don’t necessarily think they can just ‘arrest their way out of any problem’ and that ‘locking people up and throwing away the key’ isn’t a stance that all law enforcement officials have.
To learn more about these programs and others visit the CPS website and click on “youth services.”
Insite Injection Site Will Stay Open
Insite, which is located in Vancouver, is the only legal safe injection 
site in North America. Insite doesn’t provide any drugs but since 2003 it has been operating on a special exemption under the Controlled drugs and substances act to give addicts a safe place to inject their drugs. Insite has been the center of a number of studies, and controversy, since 2003 and has been proven to have benefits to society. The supreme court of Canada made their decision based on the benefits to the community and drug users in Vancouver. A reduction in public injecting, neighbourhood litter (of needles), provides a safe disposal for needles, and syringe sharing (which decreases the spread of disease), and an increase in the use of addiction treatment. There has been several studies also carried out looking at the cost benefit part of Insite. Some of the results included: $6 million in savings on HIV, and hepatitis drugs, and overdose rates dropped in Vancouver. Medical staff are present to provide addiction treatment, mental health assistance, and assistance in the event of an overdose.
Last week the supreme court of Canada made a ruling which could prove to be problematic for the conservatices ‘tough on crime’ agenda. In a
9-0 decision the supreme court of Canada ruled that closing Insite would be against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically the right to “security of the person”. Canada’s only safe injection site would remain open. Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin explained: “The effect of denying the services of Insite to the population it serves and the correlative increase in the risk of death and disease to injection drug users is grossly disproportionate to any benefit that Canada might derive from presenting a uniform stance on the possession of narcotics.”
This decision makes me wonder if the crack pipe program in Alberta could have held out. The crack pipe program began running in Calgary in November of 2008. The Alberta Health Region was handing out ‘crack pipe kits’. Each kit contained a glass pipe, mouthpiece, cleaning rod, and screens. The argument was similar to Insite’s argument. It was a way to prevent the spread of disease and bring addicts into contact with health care providers that could assist them. In these ways it 
was very similar to Insite, but the Alberta health region cracked when they began to feel pressure from the police associations who argued that such programs do nothing except encourage drug use. Given the exemption that Insite received, it could be argued that the Alberta crack pipe program falls under the same category and should also be allowed to operate without fear of prosecution on the parts of the health region officials.
What is important to remember about Insite, or even the crack pipe program in Calgary, is that neither of these places was a place where drug addicts could just go do their thing and leave. Like the crack pipe program had, Insite always has health professionals there to speak with addicts about: counseling options, risks to them, as well as address mental health issues with them and the dangers of drug addiction.
The war on drugs has been nothing short of a failure in the United States, and arguably, in some cases, a waste of money. The United States spends $15 billion annually to try and control drugs. Recently an International panel, the Global Commission on Drug Policy, declared the war on drugs a catastrophic failure. The report had what some would say are some common sense recommendations.
First, don’t treat drug addicts as criminals. The report argues that it is not feasible or safe to treat all the drug addicts in the world as criminals. First because it just simply costs too much money, and secondly because with injection users their is just too high of a risk of the spread of disease. Other countries who have similar programs to our Insite have also reported lower rates of the spread of disease such as HIV, and hepititis saving lives and tax payer dollars (as the tax payer has to front the bill, or at least part of it, for medications to treat these diseases).
Second, don’t waste your time with small time drug dealers. I won’t go into this one. I personally think it speaks for itself.
Third, Decriminalize or legalize certain drugs to undercut organized crime. I can’t say this enough. Legalize weed already. A study done in the US points out that legalizing weed would inject $6 billion into the US economy every year. Studies out of other countries who have decriminalized some drugs have shown that with the legalization of possession, and the means to obtain some drugs in a safe legal manner criminal suppliers became less visible. I am not saying that all organized crime would go away, but at the same time organized crime will never go away. Another interesting side effect of the 
decriminalization of some drugs could be decreased use. why? Because addicts could seek help without fear of prosecution. This study, done by the Beckley Foundation, on the decriminalization of drugs in Portugal looked at over all drug use and found: the use of weed increased, the use of drug treatment increased (due largely to early intervention), there was a decrease in heroin use, and there was a large reduction in drug related deaths. Of course, if I still haven’t convinced you. I’ll just say: remember prohibition?
Canada needs to take a hard look at statistics, and studies given the new policies that the conservative government wishes to pass before the end of the year. The idea is to get tough on drugs. Canadians should be looking to their neighbours to the south and asking some tough questions. It is no secret that the drug policies is costing Americans billions every year, and that the prisons are so overcrowded that some states, such as California, have had to release non violent criminals to ease the pressure on the system. I am not saying lets legalize heroin I am just saying lets not be stupid about this. Portugal has had success because they implemented education programs, treatment centers, and addicts didn’t have to worry about prosecution. Getting addicts clean from drugs should be a priority. No one wants to do drugs. People don’t wake up one morning and say to themselves “hmmm I think I am going to get addicted to Meth today”. This program has proved effective, and it allows users to come into contact with health professionals. It could be the first step. Until we have better programs implemented this is one way to ensure that needles and other drug related paraphernalia is disposed of appropriately. But more importantly it has been proven to save lifes.
Clifford Olson, Dead at 71
Friday afternoon corrections Canada confirmed that Clifford Olson
died in a Quebec hospital.
On September 21, 2011 it was reported that Olson was dying of an unnamed type of cancer and didn’t have long to live.
Olson had earned the label as Canada’s most notorious and ruthless serial killer in the 80s. He terrorized BC residents in 1980 killing at least 11 young people between the ages of 9 and 18 often raping and strangling them. In August of 1981 Olson plea bargained with the RCMP and in exchange for the government paying his family $100,000 ($10,000 per victim) he not only confessed to the murders he would lead RCMP to the bodies. This plea bargain would prove unpopular with the Canadian public. Once convicted Olson earned himself a dangerous offender label, making it unlikely he would ever be released from prison.
In 1997, Olson would apply for parole under Canada’s Faint Hope Clause which, in short, states that an offender who has served at least 15 years may apply for parole. Once an inmate has served 25 years they are also eligible for parole and Olson exercised his right to do so in July of 2006, once again he was denied parole. He would make one last attempt in November of 2010 (in Canada an inmate is allowed to apply for parole every two years after the initial 25 years).
Back in March of 2010 Olson would find himself once again back in the spotlight as it was revealed to Canadians that he was recieving a monthly cheque from the government in the amount of $1,169.47 for old age security. Bill C-31 would be put forth to disallow prisoners to be able to get old age security as a result. As a side note It was reported that in September of 2010 Olson sent one of his cheques to a reporter and asked them to pass it along to Stephen Harpers campaign for reelection.
I don’t rejoice in the death of anyone, that said this is a man that the world won’t miss.
Unplugging From Facebook: Reflection Part 2
The last thing that I’ve been examining is the time commitment that Facebook takes, and even Twitter. Who really has the time for social media between life 
activities? Think about it, we have school, work, kids, and just general life coordination to do. I started to wonder who uses Facebook and how we use it. Checking out the Facebook Stats website I learned that: 50% of users sign in daily, on average Facebook users have 130 ‘friends’, 2 billion posts are ‘liked’ or commented on daily, 250 million photos are added daily, and 350 million users use some kind of Facebook mobile application. Oddly enough those who use mobile applications log on more then users logging on from computers. According to this interesting study, 62% of Facebook users login more then once per day.
I also examined numbers of users around the world, just out of curiosity. Turns out that when Facebook launched in 2004 it gained 1 million users by December. Come December, one year later, Facebook grew to 5.5 million users. And now, in September of 2011, Facebook has over 800 million users worldwide, of which approximately 400 million sign in on a daily basis. This will come as to no surprise, but demographically the top age range of users is 18-24, followed closely 
by the 25-34 age range.
As I explored the Facebook statistics I started to notice differences in who uses Facebook. I decided to just look at Facebook usage in the United States, as stats were easiest to find. There were some significant gender, and ethnicity differences. Lets look at gender first.
According to Facebook stats, women use the social networking site more then men (about 50% more then men). I started to think about why this is. Even in my own household, which consists of 3 men and myself, this stat holds up. My two roommates do not even have Facebook, and my husband logs on once every few days, and mostly just to upload videos or news articles and sometimes take a peek at what his friends are up to. I on the other hand login several times a day to see what people are up to, talk with friends, keep in touch with family from both sides (including his grandmother), and post news articles.
According to the statistics linked above, women and men also use Facebook differently. Women tend to focus on friends, family, comment on other’s posts, post pictures, and events while men like to talk about pop culture, current events, and post videos. Not only does this not surprise me much, but when I started to examine my friends list I could see that this also held up. My female friends tend to be the ones who are in contact with people more, and post pictures of their families. I often will message my male friends girlfriends on Facebook to see if they want to hang out, as if I wait for my male friends to get back to me… while I’d be waiting a long time. My male friends tend to post a lot of current events stuff, and stupid videos (most of which related to, go figure, pop culture). This, as I stated before, doesn’t surprise me at all and I believe it’s probably because men and women are socialized differently.
When you think about it socialization plays a role in the real lives of individuals, why wouldn’t it play a role on Facebook? Women are often seen as the ones who deal with family issues, and take care of others. It makes perfect sense to me that we would tend to be the ones planning things out on Facebook, keeping in close contact with our friends and family members- particularly those who don’t live close, and posting the family pictures for others to see. There is no doubt about it men are not socialized like this. Men are socialized to be bread winners, and like sports. Someone else will worry about that other pesky stuff.
Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t always the case. But remember I am talking generally here. And generally mom’s raise their daughters to take care of a families emotional needs, while men are raised to take care of financial needs and be protectors. It is reasonable to see this socialization spill over into other aspects of life. Including social media.
The second area where there were significant differences was around ethnicity. Now, I am sure I am going to take some flack for saying this. But Facebook appears to be such a white people problem. By this I mean, wasting 
time on Facebook is not necessarily a luxury all people have, globally. According to Facebook’s US data, minorities account for
only 10% of Facebook users in the USA. Why is this? If I had to take a stab in the dark I would say this is probably linked to racial inequality, both economic and otherwise.
Discrimination and marginalization is nothing new to North America. Segregation still exists in both Canada and the US. In the US blacks and whites generally occupy different residential areas of different qualities. And often as a result end up with different opportunities, such as education. In most places in the US, for example, local schools are funded solely by the property taxes in the neighbourhood. In other words, if you live in a super rich area your schools are going to be better equipped than those who live in a poorer, or poverty stricken area. Therefore, effecting not only effecting your quality of education but your every day lives. In Canada it isn’t much better.
We, as in Canadians, segregate Native Americans from us by keeping Natives on reservations located, often, on the outskirts of cities. The conditions on reserves are terrible in Canada. Reservations have high rates of infant mortality, less then substandard housing options, low access to clean water, few (if any) social services, and low life expectancy rates. Yes people, that’s right, there are people in Canada that don’t have access to clean water all the time. Obviously, leading to the same types of issues you find in poor working class neighbourhoods in the USA.
So, do you think people in these situations are thinking about Facebook? And even if they are, do you think they have time for Facebook? Most likely not. People in these types of situations are most likely worried about the small things in life you know like food, water, and education. This at least, probably, partially explains why minorities in the US interact far less with Facebook then White people do.
Let’s face it, in North America wasting time on Facebook is such a white people issue, it’s not even funny. People who find time to screw around on the social networking sites must have the access and opportunity to do so. It’s amazing that inequality, like socialization, could spill over into a place that seems on the outside, what’s the right word here? Could seem so ‘colourblind’ or ‘equal’.
So I got a little off topic, but I found all these questions absolutely fascinating when I started to just think about social media and the impact it has on society, or even how society norms, and inequalities, impact social media.
Looking back on the week my world didn’t collapse when I got off Facebook. In fact, I would argue things were better when I was off social media. That is, I got way more done in that week than I would have had I been on Facebook
and Twitter. Last week I managed to finish all my reading for 2 of my classes, and get a head start on several papers I have due this term. Making last week my most productive school week I’ve ever had. I am not saying that I will get off Facebook and Twitter. I use it a lot for my work, inspiration, and to keep in touch with people. But I will be limiting my amount of time on Facebook. One way I have done this is by removing the Facebook application from my iPhone making it harder for me to just log onto Facebook when I am bored.
This project also gave me the opportunity to examine other aspects of social media that I had never thought of before. After being off of it for a week I don’t think I will be spending as much time on the social media site. It really is just a giant waste of time. Case in point: earlier today one of my friends was having an argument with some girl because one of them had ‘cropped’ the other out of their profile picture. *sigh*. Who has the time or desire for Facebook politics?
Unplugging From Facebook and Twitter: Reflection Part One
Here I am a week later, I’ve gotten back on social media and have been using it again since last Saturday. I’ve been watching how my peers 
are using it, I’ve been answering the stupid amount of Facebook and Twitter messages, and I have been reevaluating how much I use social media. In the last week I have only made 13 status updates on Facebook. For me this is significant as before I would make 13 updates/day.
So all week I’ve thought about social media, specifically Facebook. How much do I use it? How much do other people use it? What was the impact not using it had on me? Who has time to use it? I got back onto Facebook and Twitter this past week and found that it took an astronomical amount of time just to catch up on my notifications and messages. I had over 700 notifications and messages between Twitter and Facebook that needed looking at. I only got through 100 or so before I just gave up and sent out messages to organizations I work with, as well as posted a status up date and told them if it was important to send me a new message. Granted, most of these messages were people who couldn’t get a hold of me within a couple of hours so they send me a new Facebook or Twitter message, but it was still overwhelming. Convincing me further that people expect that instant gratification that social media provides. People expect you to be available almost 24/7. Some of the organizations I work with refused to email or call me and simply sent me messages via Facebook even though they knew I was not available.
I was speaking about this with someone who told me that she gets annoyed when she texts her son because she knows that his phone lives at his side but he doesn’t necessarily answer her for hours or even days. She said she can’t help but to expect that he will text her 
back immediately. Even technology is finding it hard to adapt to the culture they have created. For example, lets look at BlackBerry. RIM (the developer of BlackBerry) is having some major issues and is facing going under because people just aren’t using BlackBerry’s like they used to. Why? The answer is simple. Technology can’t keep up to what we want.
The BlackBerry technology can’t keep up to the demand. BlackBerry can’t compete with smartphones like: iPhone, Google phone, Nokia N8, and Windows phone, because it is not as good for applications (such as Facebook and Twitter) as its competition is . This is ironic because
the use of smartphones really did take off with BlackBerry in 2003 with the launch of their first smartphone that would push email through. Everyone wanted a BlackBerry. Now BlackBerry is generally seen as a piece of technology that is only good for pushing through email. My husband often refers to it as a ‘piece of junk’ commenting that “I’d even rather have an iPhone over this” (he is not an Apple person at all). The difference being is that you can do so much more with your iPhone then you can a BlackBerry. Facebook is easier to use and to see, the interface is smoother, and there are more applications on iPhone then BlackBerry. If you can think of an application I bet there is one for that. You can download applications for everything from finding the closest Starbucks location to loosing weight, you can even now download a drop box application that will allow you to pull documents off your home computer or laptop. Instant gratification.
Another example is internet usage. According to statistics Canada ”In 2009, 80% of Canadians aged 16 and older, or 21.7 million people, used the Internet for personal reasons, up 
from 73% in 2007 when the survey was last conducted.” As recent as 5 years ago internet providers used to promote unlimited internet as a product available. But now that people are actually using insane amounts of bandwitch downloading things, and streaming from companies like Netflix internet providers such as Shaw are starting to place caps on people’s bandwith consumption. Claiming higher costs and higher demand. The higher demand can cause a lag in the service during certain times of the day due to high usage. This could be for such internet products such as: Facebook, Twitter, online play, and streaming.
Finally my last example are services such as: Netflix, and Shaw on demand. Both of these services offer movies and TV shows without advertising whenever you want to watch them. Services such as Netflix are streamed over the internet directly to your TV. In theory these types of services could cause a real threat to cable providers. Again, instant gratification.
These examples all suggest to me that technology no longer dictates us we dictate technology. The technology itself has made us expect certain things of people, and companies. And, in turn the technology people are using. For example, I just worked on a group project for a class and one member did not have Facebook or a cell phone. Not only was it really hard to communicate with this person, we also weren’t very happy with the fact that we had to wait hours and hours to hear back from the person.
The vast majority of us also expect this out of ourselves. I often feel like I must be available to people within a short period of time. I’ve found myself answering calls, text messages, and emails at the most inappropriate times (ie- dinner with my husband) and yet I don’t think anything of it, and it is rare that anyone, other then my husband says anything about it. It’s also not unusual for me to be out with someone else for dinner and have them answer emails, texts, or phone calls while we are eating.
Technology has opened this giant can of worms that has become almost impossible to close, and some companies are struggling to keep up with the demand. Facebook is constantly finding they have to change, and expand at least yearly in order to keep from getting boring. I think the time has past for technology dictating what we want, and the time has come where we (as in the western world) is beginning to dictate to technology what we want. There is no doubt about it, we have become slaves to technology but we have become so engulfed in it that we have started to make demands of the technology and it’s having a hard time keeping up in some areas.
Up Next: Reflection Part 2
