Archive for the ‘Studies’ Category
A recently released study suggests that minority women in Canada have a harder time accessing the Canadian health care system compared to Canadian-born individuals:
Many women from visible minority groups say they have difficulty getting a primary-care physician or specialists to address urgent health concerns or to monitor chronic medical conditions, a study has found.
The study found that 15 per cent of immigrants living in Canada less than five years did not have a primary-care doctor, compared to 7.3 per cent of Canadian-born adults.
That’s terrible. If this is true, it means that only 85% of women from visible minority groups are having no trouble finding a doctor compared to 92% of Canadian born peoples. As a Canadian born male, I’m ashamed to find that we have a very slight advantage whem it comes to finding primary care physicians than that of newly arrived immigrants.
Furthermore, almost one-third of women who did not often speak English or French at home reported more difficulties accessing care from a family doctor to monitor health problems. That compares to less than 20 per cent of women who speak English or French.
That’s another jaw-dropping statistic. Women from visible minorities who don’t speak English had a slightly harder time finding a doctor than those peoples who actually speak English.
Christopher McIntosh, health services director at the Davenport Perth Neighbourhood Centre, said language can be a huge barrier for recent immigrants and minority groups when it comes to navigating the health-care system.
At the health centre in west-end Toronto, services include providing translators for patients, many of whom are recent immigrants who speak only Spanish or Portuguese.
Finally some good news. Providing translators for those immigrants who don’t speak English sure is a lot easier than the immigrants actually learning to speak English. Immigrants won’t speak English? No problem, we’ll provide translators. What the heck, it’s only time and money that could be used elsewhere….like say, speeding up emergency room times.
Women, in particular, may have fallen through the health-care cracks because many seek care for their children or adult relatives, said McIntosh. “They are typically placing themselves last.”
Martyrs. The whole darn tootin’ lot. All martyrs in The Mayor’s opinion. Imagine, these martyrs are actually placing themselves last behind their children and adult relatives. I do have a suggestion though: while booking an appointment with a doctors receptionist for their children and or adult family member, perhaps the martyrs should just swallow hard and book an appointment for themselves while they’re on the phone. There’s really no harm in that. It’s just a little more ink that the receptionist will have to scrawl down on an appointment paper.
The report, released Tuesday, is part of the larger POWER (Project for an Ontario Women’s Health Evidence-Based Report) study. The researchers say it is the first to provide a comprehensive overview of women’s health in relation to gender, income, education, ethnicity and geography.
POWER? Shouldn’t it be PFOWHEBR? No wonder immigrants are so confused and can’t get proper care. How do we expect immigrants to get proper care when the group detailing the injustices done to them can’t even get their own abbreviations correct?
I’m sure PFOWHEBR has no skin in the game, doesn’t run on government money and isn’t skewing this report for the benefit of getting more money to skew more reports. One thing I do know for sure though: Canada is a racist shithole.
Canada obviously needs more translators, activists and advocators to help non-English speaking immigrants access *free* health care. We have let our immigrants down. We have dropped the ball. At this rate, if these poor souls continue to be not-denied access to *free* health care, they’re going to have to possibly learn English. And we can’t have that now, can we?
Since singer Susan Boyle (who professes being a virgin) has been on TV, there’s been a marked drop in suicide bombings. Apparently many of the terrorists didn’t realize what a virgin looked like.
**MAD sent this to The Mayor via electronic letter
Researchers at the University of Insanity, England, found that if given a choice, men prefer women that DON’T have exceptionally long legs:
To pin down the most attractive legs, the researchers asked more than 1,000 men and women to rate the attractiveness of a series of images of female bodies.
In each case, the legs had been lengthened or shortened slightly, to alter the ‘leg-to-body ratio’, but the overall height remained the same.
The men taking part were asked which pictures appealed to them the most, and the women were asked to predict the men’s thoughts.
The men, by and large, preferred mid-length legs – that is legs that accounted for half of overall height.
The findings surprised the researchers, including Dr Viren Swami, of the University of Westminster in London.
Writing in the journal Body Image, they said long legs had always been associated with good health, as well as looks.
But it seems leg-to-body ratio is another important factor in attractiveness.
The researchers are unclear why the men did not plump for the longest legs but it may be because they are subconsciously wary of extremes.
For instance, a woman with very long legs and a small torso might find it harder to carry a baby.
Carry a baby? Who cares if they can carry a baby, as long as they can carry a few armfuls of grocery bags.
If men weren’t lying, which they are in this case, they would have told researchers the truth and that they indeed prefer women with long legs. The only guys that don’t prefer long legs are short guys. No dude wants his girl to be looking down at him, look at how that has negatively affected Tom Cruise’s life. That, and the fact that he’s gay, of course.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying guys want a woman that consists of legs, neck and head (with the head being optional), but endlessly long, shapely legs win every time over women that have little tiny legs like an alligator or some other small-legged reptile.
If this study is true and guys really did prefer women that don’t have long legs, you would have heard at least once in your life a guy that said, “wow, check out the stubby legs on that chick, they’re beautiful” But you have NEVER heard a man utter that, have you? And why? Because guys prefer women with long legs.
If you guys intend on boarding the nookie train for a trip down the tracks to Pleasure City, you best be grabbing a mop or a dish rag (Rosanne Barr’s face doesn’t count), because a new study has shown that women are sexually attracted to men that do various chores:
A new study, believed to be the first to examine the connection between housework and sex, has found that spending more hours on household chores is linked to more frequent sex for married couples. The finding surprised even the researchers.
The researchers expected men would benefit from this housework-sex connection because wives tend to do twice as much housework as their husbands and may be motivated to engage in “thank-you sex” if their partners pitched in, she says. Instead, they found the effect applies equally to both genders.
The findings of this study surprise The Mayor. Mostly because I think of some of the household chores I do but never seem to get *chore sex* credit for. For instance, the other day our toilet overflowed. There was something trapped in the back of the bowl and I had to reach my arm down the hole and root around until I could find the cause of the blockage. About 20 into this ordeal I pulled out an old diaper. I knew it was an old diaper because when I was pulling it up out of the bowl it opened and splashed everywhere. EVERYWHERE. Yes, The Mayor was covered in baby crap.
I walked down to the kitchen, but instead of ravishing me, TLDG nearly vomited. She told me to get the hell out of the kitchen, it seemed she was disgusted at the sight of me. How could this be? Wasn’t I engaged in housework?
Before I jumped in the shower I looked at myself in the mirror. The baby gunk was glistening off my abs, I had smell lines like what you’d see in comic books wafting from my triceps, and yet TLDG couldn’t translate that into making sexy with the large bald smelly man commonly known as The Mayor.
Or maybe it’s the kind of chore that gets the sex. Perhaps today’s women don’t get turned on by the thought of their man coming inside out of the cold after chopping a cord of wood – his muscles rippling, the sweat dripping off his brow. Maybe today’s women get more turned on by Svend the IT Team Player – he who strapps on a dish dress and puts on rubber gloves so his fragile hands won’t get water raw.
Well you know what? Homey don’t play dat.
I am not Svend the Dish Washing IT Team Playing girlie man who gets sex 1.6 times a week, I am Sir Manly Power, the wood choppin’ sweaty bastard that, if he wants sex, just had to drop trow and his wife is more than happy to service him. Twice. Three times on his birth week.
Besides, it’s not the chores that get the sex, it’s the free time because of getting all the household crap done that gets the sex. It’s all math, baby. If your sweetheart is working until 10 at night on household chores, by the time she gets to bed she’s too tired to fool around and you’ll probably be asleep anyway. If you help her with the chores and you’re both looking for something to do at at 7 pm, chances are you’ll do each other at 7 pm. Just don’t cover yourself in baby feces first. You’re going to have to trust The Mayor on that one.
Thanks to Dmorris for sending The Mayor this article. His reward will be given to him in heaven.
A study out of Germany suggests that women tend to cry more than men:
German experts provided confirmation today: women cry more often than men, for longer – and in a more dramatic fashion.
According to the German society of Ophthalmology, which has collated different scientific studies on the phenomenon, women shed tears on average between 30 and 64 times a year and men six to 17 times.
Men tend to cry for between two and four minutes, but for females sessions last around six minutes.
And weeping turns into full-blown sobbing for women in 65 per cent of cases, compared to just six per cent for males.
What a startling revelation.
I understand the reasons why women cry, I tend to be a pretty open and understanding fella. Crying is like the body’s natural release, it can often times be cathartic. It’s almost as if women need to cry, it’s as if crying is a woman’s mechanism for growth and recovery in a way. So ya, I totally get it. But having said that, when it comes time for a woman to cry, to completely break down and start laying out everything from her heart and soul, must they do it when it’s either overtime in the hockey game, or right before I go to sleep? Why can’t it be when I’m chopping wood, or power-washing the gutters?
I hear you, I feel for you, I know what you’re saying. But is it possible you can do it quieter, and maybe away from the television?
As per The Economist: “DESPITE an increase in entertainment choices, watching television remains as popular as ever, according to data from the OECD’s Communications Outlook report. American households watch the box for over eight hours a day on average, twice as long as anyone else. Viewing has fallen in some countries. Turks reportedly watched an hour’s less television per day in 2007 than they did only two years earlier, when the country was America’s nearest rival as couch-potato king.”
Or, the same amount as every citizen of El Salvador. Put another way, next year, tobacco use will kill the equivalent of all the inhabitants of Gabon, Namibia, Tonga, and Albania combined. Man, I’d hate to be them:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Tobacco use will kill 6 million people next year from cancer, heart disease, emphysema and a range of other ills, global cancer experts said in a report issued on Tuesday.
The new Tobacco Atlas from the World Lung Foundation and the American Cancer Society estimates that tobacco use costs the global economy $500 billion a year in direct medical expenses, lost productivity and environmental harm.
Environmental harm? Like when smokers flick cigarettes out car windows and they land on mama Gaea?
$500 billion seems awfully low, I wonder if they actually meant $500 trillion? What’s after a trillion, a bopillion? Maybe it’s a bopillion.
And if you add in the $500 bopillion that fat people cost the world economy, and the $800 bopillion criminals cost the world economy, and the $900 bopillion that drunks cost the global economy, and the $400 bopillion various units of the American banking system soaked the world for, and the $650000 molopopowillion that lazy welfare assholes cost the world economy, and the $65 kokoplillillion of damage done by polluters, and the $987948647 spimtripolillium that drug users cost the world economy, you wonder how the hell we even survive?
* 1 billion men smoke — 35 percent of men in rich countries and 50 percent of men in developing countries.
That too, seems a little low. I’m sure they meant 99% of men in rich countries smoke. I’m thinking that out of the approximately 40 guys I see down at city hall every day, about 3 smoke. That’s what, 7.5%? So somewhere, there’s a place where 35 guys work and every last one of them smoke. The math may be a little wobbly on my end, but they started it.
* Occupational exposure to secondhand smoke kills 200,000 workers every year.
I’ve read quite a few studies now that says secondhand smoke is a crock of steamy non-smokey crap. But facts don’t seem to be taken into account here, so let’s move on to the final lie:
“One hundred million people were killed by tobacco in the 20th century.
To put that in perspective, that’s over 40,000x more people that died by tobacco use in the 20th century than died in the American invasion of Grenada in 1983. Think about that for a moment.
Unless effective measures are implemented to prevent young people from smoking and to help current smokers quit, tobacco will kill 1 billion people in the 21st century,” the report predicts.
My Lord, that’s 1/6 of the current world population!!!1!1!! Is there any organization that can help the universe implement more effective measures to prevent young people from smoking?1!11!!!
Last week the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on launched a tobacco center to oversee cigarettes and other related products, after winning the power to do so from Congress in June. On Tuesday it set up a committee of advisers to help guide it.
Well thank any God but the Christian God that a giant bureaucracy has been set up to save us from ourselves. Finally there’s a *center* that oversees cigarettes and other *related products* (small cigars and Popeye smokes perhaps) that can get the word out that smoking is bad. Truth be told, I always thought it was good for you. That may have to do with the fact that there’s very little information out there telling us of the evils of smoking. If only the government had let the world know sooner.
Since the World Governments’™ all agree that smoking is evil, is killing us, and costing the universe every last peso, I’m sure the next step would be to either make tobacco an illegal product, therefore banning smokes, or, putting a $50 tax on every pack of smokes, making it impossible for folks to afford them. Now THAT would save us from themselves.
What? Then the government would screw themselves out of that keraaaaaaazy smoke-tax money?
Wow, aint you cynical tonight!
Sometimes it pays to be funny–as Psychologist Kristofor McCarty found out:
Psychologist Kristofor McCarty said it appeared that men really can laugh women into bed.
He said: ‘A quick browse of lonely hearts ads will confirm that women look for a good sense of humour in a potential partner – our research may explain why this is the case.’
Mr McCarty asked 45 women to rate the personalities behind a selection of lonely hearts ads drawn up especially for the study.
Some of the ads had been chosen because they were funny, others were entirely factual.
The funny men were rated as more intelligent, despite the ads containing no clues on IQ.
They were also seen as more honest and better material for a relationship and for friendship, the British Psychological Society’s annual conference heard.
Not only that, but funny guys are also seen as more compassionate, devoted, courageous, trusting, sincere, and hung like bloody horses.
While those traits I mentioned weren’t actually discussed in the study, I think it’s pretty safe to assume that’s what they would have found if they dug a bit deeper.
Generally I find these type of studies to be little more than nonsense, but this one seems to have hit the nail right on the head. Perhaps that’s because I agree with it.
I don’t know if women who find guys funny also find them more intelligent and honest, but I do know women typically like guys that have a good sense of humour. I feel this is true because although I have a face that resembles a chunk of tarmac from the Toronto International Airport, I have always seemed to do well with members of the opposite sex (that would be females, for the layperson). When a woman first sees me, their first impression isn’t that they have just seen something so beautiful that their heart melts, their first impression is to hold onto their purse and have their trigger finger ready on the can of mace they have in their pocket.
Without humour, The Mayor would have to resort to picking up women the old fashioned way ugly guys have always done it: Roofies, duct tape and copious amounts of whiskey. And it’s not that I’m against that, us uggos need all the help we can get, but the fact is that roofies, duct tape and booze are expensive, but a good pick up line costs nothing.
It’s also a good idea for all the ugly guys out there to learn hypnotism. It bagged me a wife, maybe it will help your chances, too. If not, you can always resort back to roofies, duct tape, and whiskey. Either way, don’t sweat it, there’s someone out there for everyone. Yours though might be a few shades below average looking, but considering you look like something the cat just threw up, it would be wise to start praising the Lord for your many blessings. I sure as hell do.
Writing for the Dating School, Brent Crouch gives some timely advice on how to attract the ladies. Among the gems Brent dispenses include:
First, you need to look at your posture and where you position yourself in a social situation. Now that you are standing and facing the crowd, make sure your posture is welcoming.
You don’t have to dress in Armani suits when you go out, but you should, at the very least, have clean clothes on.
Finally, many women these days take a lot of pride in being independent, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t offer to buy someone a drink.
These tips for attracting women should help you get more attention the next time you are out at your favourite nightspot.
Let me see if I get this straight–If one wants to attract the ladies, one should stand up straight, wear clean clothes, and offer women booze? Brent Crouch is the smartest man in the world.
I’m sure most guys were like me and thought if you want to attract the ladies you should dress like a reprobate, smell like a fire hydrant, look disinterested, and never offer to buy a girl a drink. Brent Crouch has opened my eyes to a new way of thinking, he should be applauded. Perhaps a parade can be thrown in his honour.
I wish Brent had an email address so I could write him and ask this important question that has always been on my mind: After you hit a woman over the head with a ball-peen hammer and throw her in your trunk, and after you toss her into your love dungeon, is it best to have 2″ thick chains to secure her arms of legs or is 1.5″ preferable? And, what wine goes best with face?
An Indiana University study on what attracts females had some incredible and startling results.
Researchers at Indiana University showed video clips from 24 different speed dates and asked male and female participants two simple questions: “Do you think the man was interested in this woman?” and “Do you think the woman was interested in this man?” Their answers were then compared with the responses of the speed daters themselves.
The results, published in the January issue of the journal Psychological Science, show that both men and women are able to gauge a man’s interest in a woman, but are equally baffled when it comes to figuring out if a woman is interested in a man.
Fascinating, it seems that no one is quite sure what women are thinking. You could knock me down with a feather.
When it comes to dating, the head of this study, one Skyler S. Place, explains the biological drive behind dating for women:
Ultimately, women have more at stake while dating because they face higher “sunk costs” — a woman can carry the child of only one man at a time, while a man can impregnate many women.
If Skyler ever had to pay $1400.00 in child support payments every month to a shiftless, pina colada drinking malcontent, he/she would immediate reassess the “sunk cost” thing. Add to that that birth control and abortion are more popular than Tylenol nowadays, the whole “sunk cost” scenario is pretty much bullshit.
The Mayor knows less about women now than he did 25 years ago when he first dated, but I do know the three things women look for in a man, and that hasn’t changed to this day: looks, personality, money.
If you possess any one of those three things, the chances of you saddling up a little philly have increased 10 fold. If you have cash, you’re in. If you are handsome and stupid, you’re in. As for personality? Trust a man who had no cash and a face that looks like a tomato that has been sitting on a window ledge for 17 weeks. Without my outgoing personality, I’d would have had as much chance of bagging a woman as the guy that changes the urinal pucks at the neighbourhood mall. Fortunately for me, I’ve always had a sense of humour and could always spot desperation and extreme drunkenness from across any smoky bar.
The point is, this is just another study confirming the obvious–no one knows what women want.
Hey, gum is sticky, I wonder why? They should come out with a study…
The British government released its findings on teenage pregnancy today, results which I’m sure will stun and shock you:
Responding to the latest figures – from 2007 – which showed a rise after years of decline, Mr Balls said: ‘We know that there is a clear link between drinking and having unsafe sex and we also know that the number of unwanted pregnancies has gone up recently.”
“Young people themselves tell us they go further sexually than they planned when they are drunk.’
What would the world do without top notch studies like this? I’ll tell you what we would do–we would still be under the impression that teenage pregnancies were caused by dirty toilet seats, or from alien implants. Who woulda thunk that horny kids, when plied with booze, would not only have sex, but would go *further sexually than they planned*? You could knock me over with a feather.
Now that we have this information at our fingertips, it’s time to take action. Considering this study comes out of Britain, it’s obvious what the British government will do: Tax teenage pregnancies.