Rotundus.com

The end of the gender wars was the title of an article published in the National Post on December 30, 2009. Here's a bit I found interesting:

Commonsensical Canadians are losing patience with the angry, blame-all-males school of feminism. It's no accident that the feminist Toronto Women's Bookstore, for years a bustling cynosure of the cultural zeitgeist, is in danger of closing down. Or that once overflowing women's studies classes are emptying out, or morphing into "gender studies" to attract more students (a trap, really: Gender studies are also gynocentric, offering a more subtle version of heterosexual male-bashing than women's studies).

Rob Kenedy, an assistant professor in the sociology department of York University with a specialty in the men's rights movement, was unique amongst sociologues in teaching a course in the 1990s about men and their particular tribulations and needs. In a telephone interview he recalled his surprise when more young women signed up than men: "Women are far more interested in learning about men and masculinity than men are."

Because the numbers in universities are so skewed to the distaff -- in a current obligatory sociology course, his own tutorial is comprised of 25 women and two men -- Kenedy predicts sociology departments will have to open up (positive) masculinity courses to satisfy the burgeoning curiosity of women about what makes men tick.

The idea that more women would be enrolled in a class on a (positive) view of masculinity struck me as rather odd. Could it be that students didn't quite know what to expect? (Given that "traditional" women's studies classes at universities seem to label men the source of every problem on the planet). Is it just the typical arts/humanities vs. sciences gender gap in effect? (Having done Computer Science (Honours) mixed with History (Extended Minor) as an undergrad I can attest to that gap being particularly evident in some classes - both on the history side and on the computer science side).

Apparently, the "full body" scanners will soon be making an appearance at Canadian airports (and popping up more frequently in other airports around the world). But, what do you know, it seems that they (and likewise the "pat-down" approach) likely wouldn't have worked to stop this attempt on Christmas:

Since the attack was foiled, body-scanners, using "millimetre-wave" technology and revealing a naked image of a passenger, have been touted as a solution to the problem of detecting explosive devices that are not picked up by traditional metal detectors – such as those containing liquids, chemicals or plastic explosive.

But Ben Wallace, the Conservative MP, who was formerly involved in a project by a leading British defence research firm to develop the scanners for airport use, said trials had shown that such low-density materials went undetected. Tests by scientists in the team at Qinetiq, which Mr Wallace advised before he became an MP in 2005, showed the millimetre-wave scanners picked up shrapnel and heavy wax and metal, but plastic, chemicals and liquids were missed.

- Excerpted from The Independent

The idea of Israeli-ifying airport security is grabbing more attention as well though (e.g. a Toronto Star article). Seems the only sane way to address the problem.

An article in the Chronicle of Higher Education suggests no:

If you've ever sat through a teaching seminar, you've probably heard a lecture about "learning styles." Perhaps you were told that some students are visual learners, some are auditory learners, and others are kinesthetic learners. Or maybe you were given one of the dozens of other learning-style taxonomies that scholars and consultants have developed.

Almost certainly, you were told that your instruction should match your students' styles. For example, kinesthetic learners—students who learn best through hands-on activities—are said to do better in classes that feature plenty of experiments, while verbal learners are said to do worse.

Now four psychologists argue that you were told wrong. There is no strong scientific evidence to support the "matching" idea, they contend in a paper published this week in Psychological Science in the Public Interest. And there is absolutely no reason for professors to adopt it in the classroom.

(HT: James Grant)

Some odd - or perhaps not so odd - strategies seem to work to reduce crime.

Since 1979 the average number of bank robberies in the U.S. has been a dismaying 11 per 100 commercial bank branches. But in the past year, despite the recession, bank robberies are down to only 6 per 100. The industry gives lots of the credit to those overly friendly greeters who many banks have seemingly poached from Wal-Mart stores.

Branches are now pressing guards, tellers and even branch managers to say hello and look every entering customer in the face. It makes customers feel welcome and crooks a bit intimidated. "The last thing a bank robber wants is to be noticed," says W. Douglas Johnson, head of security policy analysis at the American Bankers Association.

Using greeters to spook potential bank robbers has spread quickly since 2006, when a Seattle FBI agent, Lawrence Carr, included the idea in a widely disseminated program taught to bank security officers called SafeCatch. Carr, who spent five years studying bank robberies and interviewing crooks, argues that a warm greeting to a would-be robber eliminates psychological "trigger points"--confidence, anonymity, control over his fear--that the robber needs to go ahead with the crime.

Source: Forbes Magazine (via Dr. Helen)

A similar strategy seems to be having an effect on crime in New Zealand. In that case, it wasn't a matter of greeting people entering a business, but rather stopping by the homes of criminals for a chat.

A different approach to policing in Southland that included officers visiting criminals at home for a friendly chat had contributed to a 17 per cent drop in crime in the region, a police boss said.

Source: The Southland Times