Hockey moms of Canada unite and rejoice! It seems bodychecking is now a thing of the past for players in the peewee league. According to an article in the CBC, Hockey Canada's board of directors voted for the ban in this brand of physical contact.
The Canadian Paediatric Society applauded the decision, which affects players who are typically between 11 and 12 years old.
"This evidence-based decision puts brain safety first, and will enhance player development by focusing on fundamental skills, fun and lifetime fitness," said CPS president Dr. Andrew Lynk in a press release.
Indeed, research has found that the risk of injuries increases three-fold for peewee players permitted to check, comparing provinces of Quebec—where the ban has already been in place—with Alberta.
But of course not everyone celebrated the move; the Saskatchewan Hockey Association dissented, believing that bodychecking is an integral part of the good old hockey game. It went so far as to claim children should be taught how to check from as young as eight and nine.
Cause for celebration or curbing the nature of the game?
While you're at it, check out these top tips from the mom of an NHLer to help you survive the season.
What went around certainly came around to bite Abercrombie and Fitch in the pants. Following the media tumult surrounding its CEO's comments, the fashion retailer has reported a drop of 17 percent in its U.S. sales for the first quarter of the year.
According to an article in the Huffington Post, future profit is likely to plummet. One can't help but surmise that the public outcry had something to do with those figures, though Mike Jeffries blames the shortfall on "inventory shortages."
Apparently sales had actually declined prior to the resurgence in Jeffries' contentious and elitist comments dating back to 2006, in which he claimed his brand only markets to "cool, good-looking people," and none above a certain size. The responses have been tremendous, from a 'plus-sized' blogger and homeless donning the label in mock protest.
In attempt to dig his foot out, the Abercrombie CEO publicly regretted via Facebook that his "choice of words was interpreted in a manner that has caused offense." An apology, of sorts.
What do you think? Has karma befallen the brand, or just a retailer's bad luck?
So where the war of the sexes is waged, which sex is most concerned with staying monogamous? According to an article in Slate, the answer may surprise you. While the story we're usually sold is that men are the compulsive oat-sowers, while women are all wrapped up in fairy tale notions of one true love and happily ever after. But turns out, we've got it all back to front.
In the New York Times, Daniel Bergner maintained that women are first to "lose interest in sex with their partners." That's not to say infidelity follows, of course, but we are more prone to become sexless or to 'mix it up' through fantasies with partners other than our spouses. (Studies have revealed that strangers play heavily in these lustful moments than friends or familiar figures.)
Bergner references Lybrido, a libido-boosting drug currently under clinical trials, designed to "restore [women's] desire for their husbands." It is being toted as the 'female Viagara'—a mother's little helper for those whose libidos could do with a kick start.
So it seems that monogamy, sexual boredom, and lack of novelty in the bedroom are shared problems—not simply the afflictions of horny husbands.
Is monogamy the "recipe for misery" this writer suggests? Would you take a drug if it promised to spice up your sex live?
Printer-friendly version