Being an independent adult 101

We often hear stereotypes related to the generation Y like they are treated like kings, they are spoiled kids that never grow up, that they stay at their parent’s home until 30 years old, etc. Those stereotypes blame young people for not being independent adult. But what describe an independent adult? What are the skills needed for this title? How and where do we get them?

First of all, let’s respond to the first question: what are the skills needed to be an independent adult? I split those skills in four groups: the academic knowledge, the living abilities, the social abilities and the healthy habits. The first category is mainly the general knowledge. To be an independent adult, a person needs to know one thing or two. I think that the most someone knows the best it is. Being aware of the world around is essential. Knowledge in history makes a person understand where he or she comes from, knowledge in politics and economics makes a person understand how the world works and knowledge in science makes a person understand how the nature around works. The second group contains all basic abilities needed in a home. It is impossible to live independently without knowing how to cook, to clean, to do the laundry and to manage money. If someone has not mastered those skills, someone will have to do it for him or her. The third group is social abilities. The human is a sociable animal. He lives in society, so it is vital to know how to act in society.  For example, making a good impression is useful for a job or knowing how to make friends prevents from living a lonely life. The fourth and last category is the healthy habits. It includes a good balance between the work, the social life and the family life, eating healthy food, practicing physical activities and knowing how to relax. It is good to be clever and to know how to manage a home and a relationship, but, if the lifestyle is unhealthy, there is no quality of life. It is impossible to enjoy fully the independent life.

Second of all, let’s review all the groups of skills, but now responding to the questions how and where. First, we can get academic knowledge in school, obviously. Even if some people think that school is useless, it is not. However, we can get it elsewhere like in books, on the Internet, at TV, from someone, etc. School has not the knowledge monopoly. We can get this skill by listening to people, to the world around or by researching, being curious. Second, we only can get living abilities by practicing. It is like learning how to pedal. We just have to try it. It is possible to try to learn by watching someone, but seriously no one can get Ricardo’s talent by only watching his TV show. We cannot learn those skills in school, so we just have to learn on the job. Third, we can get social abilities in school. It is a great environment for this purpose because there are plenty of people at the same place each day. It is easier to make lasting relationships this way. We can learn it at home too. Parents can teach good social values like respect and politeness. We get those skills by trails and errors. With experience and supervision we can become relatively accomplished social persons. Fourth, we usually learn health habits at home. It is mostly the parents that influence children on this matter. After childhood, we can decide to continue those habits or to change them based on what we now believe in. Friends, society and awareness campaign can influence us too. We can learn those skills by repeating again and again healthy actions until they become habits.

To conclude, to be an independent adult we need skills from four categories: the academic knowledge, the living abilities, the social abilities and the healthy habits. I think it is impossible to master them all. Nobody is perfect. Each person has his or her flaws.  For some, it is the healthy part or others it is the living abilities. We just have to do our best to survive in our wild world. 

Millennials and volunteering

After the Second World War, men were getting back home. As a result, the birthrate was pretty high until 1965 (The Canadian Encyclopedia, n.d.). Those people who were born in that time period are called the baby-boomer generation (The Canadian Encyclopedia, n.d.).  Each time period has its specific generation. People who are born between 1980 and 1995 are called the millennial generation (CBS, February 11, 2009). There are a lot of prejudices related to this generation. One of them is that the millennials are self-centered, so they do not get involved in their community.

First, I do not think that there is a lack of participation in community service for the millennials. In fact, Jean Twenge, a psychology professor, states that ‘’youth volunteerism has actually risen in the last decade’’ (Ray Williams, June 6, 2010). Two main reasons could explain this situation. First of all, millennials were raised with the idea that a person can do whatever he or she wants. It may have made spoiled people, but those people have big dreams. They want to have a positive impact in their world. Community service is a good start. Second of all, more and more people attend university. On the work market, if a person wants to be noticed, he or she has to have something more than a piece of paper. Employers search for candidates with various experiences. It is the same thing for the admission in universities. In the United States, for example, the community service is essential to get to the most prestigious schools. More close to us, there are programs, like the international program at Joseph-Harmas Leclerc in Granby and at Jean-Jacques Bertrand in Farnham, that include hours of community service. It goes the other way around too. There are a lot of schools. To attract the greatest students, schools have to offer other things than good classes. Students will check what the other opportunities are. Is there international exchange? Are there possibilities of social involvement?

Second, I think that volunteering is better than service learning. Volunteer Canada describes volunteering as ‘’people [who] work to improve the lives of their neighbours and, in return, enhance their own’’ (Kaylan C. Schwarz, Fall 2013).  On the other hand, service learning provides volunteering in addition of preparatory orientation, classroom activities and structured reflection (Kaylan C. Schwarz, Fall 2013). I prefer volunteering for two reasons. First of all, the work load of service learning is demoralizing. Students will not be motivated to do the volunteering if there is some other heavy work to do. They will not understand the essence of community service which is helping not getting a good mark. Second of all, students are able to think by themselves. There is no need of someone else to ask them questions about their experience and their learning. If the volunteering has a positive or negative outcome the student will notice it by himself. There is no need for a rigid framework.

Third, I think that schools should not force students to do volunteering, but should encourage it. Volunteering has positive impacts on the communities and on students too.  Community involvement gives skills, knowledge and attitudes that are needed to be a good citizen (Kaylan C. Schwarz, Fall 2013). It gives people a sense of cooperation, an open-mind. The effects are not the same if volunteering is mandatory. When someone is forced to do something, he or she is reticent even before starting. The person will do it because he or she has to do it, but will not be motivated and will not learn anything. Schwarz declares that mandatory community involvement ‘’cannot guarantee equal access to meaningful community involvement placements’’ (Kaylan C. Schwarz, Fall 2013). What schools can do is encouraging volunteering. They can offer an optional volunteering course or give extra credits. There are other ways to motivate young people to be involved in their community.

To conclude, I think that millennials do get involved in their community, that volunteering is better than service learning and that schools should not force students to volunteer. The boomers are complaining about the generation millennial, but who raised them? Anyway, it is not a competition for the best generation. Each generation has their qualities and faults.

Mini Miss

Who has never heard of Honey Boo Boo? Child beauty pageant is quite popular in Western countries. However, the senate in France has recently voted a bill to ban beauty pageant for children under 16 years old (Urback, 2013). It is a controversial subject. Some argue that those beauty pageants are sexualizing young girls and some other argue that it is not the role of the government to tell the parents what to do with their children. In my opinion, child beauty pageants should not exist.

First, some beauty pageants make children look like objects or 20 years old heading to the club. Little girls wear makeup, high heels, sexy outfits and have fake tan (Wallace, 2013). I do  not think that it is what a child should be wearing. Childhood is for playing outside in the sand, catching frogs and butterflies. It is maybe idyllic, but it is far more close to what childhood should be. Dressing up little girls like strippers is seriously insane. What worries me is what would become those girls. Their self-esteem will be based on their physical appearance. They will think that it is the most important thing. It will make them weak women with no character. Is it what we want for women in our society? We are supposed to stand up for the gender equality. Be pretty and be quiet is what society told girls not too far ago. Do we want to go back then? Some will say that participants have to talk and say something clever too. Seriously, is it the part that interest people? There are many other ways to develop talking skills that are more relevant.

Second, children are forced to do beauty pageants by their mom. Robyn Urback (2013) states that ‘’little girls parade across stages to win their mothers a vicarious sense of approval’’. If little girls do beauty pageants, it is because their mother wants to. Children want to please their parents. So, if doing beauty contests is what it makes to please their mom, they will happily do it. Wynn Westmoreland, a competitor in the University of Georgia pageant, affirms that ‘’the pageant bodies should get together and create a new rule only allowing girls to enter when they are at an age when they can choose what they want to do for themselves, around 9, 10 or 11’’(Wallace, 2013). Children cannot choose by themselves, even at 9, 10 or 11 years old, because all their live is based on their parents. It is only at the adolescence that children push aside their parents’ opinions and learn how to get their own.  Furthermore, those girls are raise in the minding that physical appearance is all, so it is normal that they think this way too. For those girls who really like beauty pageants, they can participate when they are older.

Third, I think it is the role of the government to forbid child beauty pageants. Robyn Urback declares (2013) that ‘’government should not decide how parents raise their kids, even if some parents seem to make poor choices. It’s a hazard of a free society’’. I do not agree. Even if we are in a free society, it does not mean that everyone can do anything. Children are not furniture. Parents cannot treat them like they want. It is true that government cannot provide a good family for every child, but it can provide bills to protect them. I think that child beauty pageants are harmful for the body image of young girls. In case of harm, the government should act.

To conclude, child beauty pageants should be ban by governments of all Western countries, because beauty contests are not a place for happy and healthy childhood. Our society is deranged. We push little girls to play with dolls and to be pretty and we push little boys to play with cars and to be strong. We are in 2013. Girls can be mechanic and boys can be nurse. We are caught with strong stereotypes that do not seem to vanish with the progress of our society. 

The Charter of Quebec Values

The Parti Québécois government and the minister for democratic institutions, Bernard Drainville, have presented recently the Charter of Quebec Values. The main points of this charter are ‘’to entrench the religious neutrality of the state[1]’’ and to ‘’limit the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols by public employees[2]’’. This emotional PQ project causes a division of point of views in the population. As far as I am concerned, I am fully against this charter; however, I understand the concerns on which the charter is based on.

Globalization has brought people of all around the world to emigrate. Now, multiculturalism defines most of the occidental countries. Some people are afraid that our society is losing its identity and find the need to clarify our values. This is legit and normal. But, how far can we go in the name of cultural identity?

First, I think the charter is not fair for every citizen. It is made for some specific religious minorities: Muslims, Jews and Sikhs[3]. Only them wear ‘’conspicuous’’ religious symbols. This is exactly what disturbs some people. Yes, too big Christian cross are forbidden too, but seriously who wears one foot wide cross? Of course, little cross jewelry is allowed (one of the only thing Christians wear), the crucifix at the National Assembly remains, Christmas trees in offices are allowed and people swears on the bible in court[4]. If this is not discriminatory, I do not see what could be. The charter only goes halfway. If we want the complete neutrality of the state, fine, but is has to be for everyone.

Second, I do not think, to prove the neutrality of the state, public employees have to leave home their religious symbols. Job and beliefs are two separated things. For example, a Jew doctor is not there to convert his patients to Judaism. He is there to treat them. His religion has no effect on the purpose of his job. When someone choses to wear a religious symbol, it is a personal decision for his personal life. There is a difference between the state and its members. The state is neutral as a whole, but its members believe in what they want. Furthermore, how can we expect people to leave their beliefs at home? When someone believes in something, he believes in it all the time, not after five pm and before eight am. For some religions, symbols come with the belief.

Third, I do not agree, in the name of gender equality, we should banish the headscarf of our public institutions. Julius Grey, a human-rights lawyer, said in the Globe and Mail: ‘’Quebec proclaims gender equality as a predominant ‘’value’’. It is indeed very important, but does it necessarily carry more weight than racial equality?[5]’’. The PQ government wants to forbid the headscarf in the name of gender equality, but they forbid women to wear a cultural symbol as well. In the name of gender equality, discrimination is right? I do not think so. I think this measure has the opposite effect on gender equality. Women who wear the headscarf will not remove it one day with no afterthought and go to work. They will not give up their beliefs because it is in the law. They will have no choice but to quit their job. Those women will become housewife and will depend on their husband. Great progress for the gender equality…

Fourthly, we will lose employees. Like I just explained, people will quit their job. They will probably go to work in another country. Yet, we need those people. Who will replace them? Additionally, it is not moral and constitutional to force people to choose between their convictions and their employment[6]. 

To conclude, I disagree with the Charter of Quebec Values because it does not apply equally, there is no link between people wearing religious symbol and the neutrality of the state, it will decrease the gender equality and it forces people to make a choice.

‘’The time has come to rally around our common values. They define who we are.

Let’s be proud of them.’’ – Bernard Drainville[7]

People who have other cultures are proud of their values too. They define who they are too. Why ‘’Quebec values’’ should supplant the people personal values?

---

[1] Authier,P. (2013, September 11). More than religious attire at stake. Montreal Gazette, p.A3.

[2] Ibid

[3] (2013, September 14). The Globe and Mail, p.A10.

[4] Idem, Authier, P.

[5] Idem, The Globe and Mail

[6] Ibid

[7] Idem, Authier, P.

Legalization of marijuana

The legalization of marijuana has come up in the news recently with the declaration of Justin Trudeau. He admitted that he have smoked pot once and said that the legalization of marijuana will be in the Liberal electoral platform[1].

What is legalization? The possession, the use, the selling and the production become legal. Decriminalization permits only the use.[2]

Usually, the first argument against the legalization is that marijuana is unhealthy especially for teens. A study says ‘’that pot-smoking interferes with the healthy development of teens’ brains and puts them at risk for developing a dependence to the drug, as well as for mental health problems[3].’’ 17% to 32% of teens aged 12 to 18 years old use cannabis according to a Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse research[4]. 

In my opinion, marijuana should be legalized. First, it can be a source of money. The government spends a lot of money in a law that does not even work. By legalizing, this money can be used for other things. Even more, the government can make money by selling cannabis. Jobs can be make too for the production and it will reduce the profit of criminal organizations. Second, if the government sells it, the quality of marijuana will improve and the use can be regulated. Pot consumers do not know what is really in what they buy. Criminal organisations do not really care about the health of their clients, so they mix substances that are really strong with the cannabis. If the government sells it, consumers will be sure of the ‘’ingredients list’’.  Furthermore, the government can establish rules to regulate the use. They can set a minimum age like alcohol or gaming and a cap of amount by person like in Colorado and Washington states[5]. This way, consumers will be safer. Third, the argument that says that pot is unhealthy does not work. Alcohol is legal and it is unhealthy when consumed in excessive quantity. Gaming is legal and it is unhealthy when it is too often. Caffeine is legal and it is unhealthy when consumed in excessive quantity.  Greasy, sweet or salty food is legal and it is unhealthy. The cannabis is the same thing. It is unhealthy only when it is consumed excessively like everything in life. There comes a time where people make their own choices. The government cannot control everything. It is true that some people are more mentally affected then others by drugs, but it is no reason to forbid it for everyone. Fourthly, the law is completely useless. Nearly 40% of the population have consumed at least once in their life in 2011 according to Health Canada[6]. People are curious and they will try it, forbidden or not. People smoke marijuana since the 19th century in

North America[7].This practice will probably never end. What is the point to forbid it? Governments tried to forbid alcohol during the first half of the 20th century. Did that work? No. Prohibit something and you will be sure that people will do it.  

---

[1] CBCNEWS. ''Trudeau's pot 'actions speak for themselves,' Harper says''. CBC, (August 23 2013). Online. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/08/22/pol-michel-justin-trudeau-marijuana-pot-huffington-post.html (Source read on September 12, 2013) 

[2] METRONEWS. ‘’ Cannabis : légaliser, dépénaliser, quelle différence?’’. Métro, (September 15 2012). Online. http://www.metronews.fr/info/cannabis-legaliser-depenaliser-quelle-difference/mljo!eOcbF61RCGtRo/ (Source read on September 12, 2013)

[3] MULHOLLAND, Angela. ‘’ Pot use presents long-term danger to teens' brains, study suggests’’. CTVNews, (August 29 2013). Online. http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/health-headlines/pot-use-presents-long-term-danger-to-teens-brains-study-suggests-1.1432167 (Source read on September 12, 2013)

[4] CANADIAN CENTRE ON SUBSTANCE ABUSE. Student alcohol and drug use. Ottawa, 2011. Online. http://www.ccsa.ca/2011%20CCSA%20Documents/2011_CCSA_CrossCanada_Report_on_Student_Alcohol_and_Drug_Use_Report_in_Short_en.pdf (Source read on September 12, 2013)

[5] TENCER, Daniel. ‘’ Marijuana Legalization Canada: Liberal Party Lays Out Detailed Economic Plan For Pot’’. The Huffington Post Canada, (10/28/2013). Online. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/01/28/marijuana-legalization-liberal-party-canada_n_2567316.html (Source read on September 12, 2013)

[6] CANADA. HEALTH CANADA. Enquête de surveillance canadienne de la consommation de drogues. Ottawa, 2011. Online. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/drugs-drogues/stat/_2011/summary-sommaire-fra.php#a3 (Source read on September 12 2013)

[7] SPICER, Leah. Utilisation historiques et cuturelles du cannabis et le débat sur la marijuana au Canada. Ottawa, Parlement du Canada, 2002. Online. http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/sen/committee/371/ille/library/spicer-f.htm#A. Histoire du cannabis en Amérique du Nord (Source read on September 12, 2013)

Community

In an individualistic world like ours, it may be difficult to develop a feeling of belonging; however, we are not that far apart from each other. In fact, we belong to countless communities. A community is a group of people related by the place of living or a common characteristic. For example, I belong to the Shefford community, the french community, the Cegep community, my job community, etc. To break the isolation, the trick is simple: active citizenship. An active citizen takes a role in is community. He participates. He has rights, but in exchange he has responsibilities. They can be written in the law or not. I have the right to drive a car, but I have the responsibility to respect the rules of the road. It is an obligation because it is in the law. I have the right to a democratic political system, but I can take the responsibility to vote or not. There is no obligation. An active citizen respects his community obligations and chooses to take responsibilities for the well-being of his community. As a person who is part of communities, I contribute by respecting my obligations: I stop at red lights, I do not steal, I do not hurt anyone, I do not disturb in class, I do not throw my garbage outside, etc. I contribute too by recycling, going to school, working, following the news, or voting. It is not much, but at least I am not a nuisance. I participate to my community's economy by working and going to school (future well-paid job). By being an active citizen, people develop a feeling of belonging for their communities. They can then feel a part of something.