What's the ultimate nutrient-rich shake? Breast milk. So says an article that claims human milk is being bought online by bodybuilders and CrossFit aficionados.
Did you make it through the Snorefest that was the 2015 Oscars? I admit I tried, but failed. I did, however, catch sight of Scarlett Johansson. Didn't she look stunning in an emerald-green Versace number, with a hairstyle channelling Pink and Miley? She looked so ravishing that John Travolta, coming up behind her, seized both the moment and her waist, before planting a supremely lecherous kiss on her cheek.
Poor man couldn't help himself and poor ScarJo, who didn't see it coming, found herself in the supremely awkward position of having to laugh off Travolta's totally inappropriate play for the cameras.
The Saturday Night Fever and Grease star didn't stop there. While onstage, his hands also got busy fondling the face of Idina Menzel, whose name he memorably botched during last year's Academy Awards ceremony.
#AskHerMore on the Red Carpet
This sort of occurrence seems harmless enough on the face of it, but it left me seeing red. How many times have we been in ScarJo's position, having to put on a poker face while humouring the flirtations of men, who feel it's somehow excusable and acceptable for them to place their hands on our bodies or to steal kisses?
Shame on you, Travolta, for being so shamelessly handsy and putting both Menzel and Johansson in a compromising position while all the cameras flashed. It's as though he missed out on those early "quiet hands" lessons we teach preschoolers...
Keep those hands to yourself. They don't belong on any body who is not your lover and who has not given you permission. Nor do they belong on a pregnant woman's belly, either. Just because there is a baby in there doesn't make it ok.
A woman's body is not public property that you gain access rights to simply by virtue of being older and supposedly wiser.
Not even if you are John Travolta.
Image Source: YouTube
Police were called to an Ottawa elementary school this week. Was there a weapon involved? Were threats made? No. A young boy with autism was simply having a meltdown. Their response: handcuff him.
He's nine years-old.
Daniel Ten Oever is neither a monster nor a criminal, though he was treated as exactly that. Both police and Catholic school board officials justified the response as totally necessary.
As a parent of an autistic boy with aggressive tendencies, I find this conduct appalling and grossly incompetent. I say "incompetent" because anyone who understands anything about autism and autistic meltdowns knows that restraint is categorically not the way to deal with "outbursts." It makes matters worse.
When my six year-old used to lose it—which could mean scratching, thrashing, kicking, spitting, punching, throwing things—he was in a highly distressed state, and totally out of control of his body. I liken it to an epileptic fit, after which he would come to, exhausted and seemingly unaware of the force that had just taken over his small body.
What kids in the thralls of a meltdown need is a safe place, where they won't hurt themselves or anyone else, in which to wait out the storm.
What they don't need is forcible restraint or any other punitive measure that inflicts trauma.
No wonder Ten Oever is now terrified of police. We entrust our professionals and other authority figures to care for and protect our children, and this is what we get. Notice I said our children. Yours and mine.
Earlier this year my son had an "outburst" at school. Staff responded beautifully. The first course of action was to remove objects that could be thrown. Kids were told to back off and give him some space. They waited it out while my son recovered. It was dignified and respectful way to deal with a crisis situation. Fortunately these outbursts are rare, but there is usually some underlying trigger that requires further investigation.
After all, a meltdown is an expression of acute vulnerability that doesn't know how to "use words" or express itself in any other way.