Traveling alone and having to eat at restaurants is the worst if you’re a women. At least that’s what CNN and the founder of a new female-only app called “Invite for a Bite” are saying.

This App “solves the problem” of eating out alone when you’re traveling. On the site you can either search for a invite or create one, connecting you with other women in your destination. Now, I’m all for this idea. It’s a great way to meet other travelers or have a local to connect with and learn about a new culture in the process. That’s wonderful.

What isn’t wonderful is how this app depicts women. In the CNN article, founder of another App, called “I Love Your Accent,” Rachelle Peachey says, “When I walk into a restaurant or bar alone, I feel others see me as either a woman out to pick up men or a sad, lonely spinster.” I question if our gender has really advanced when otherwise successful women can’t deal with being out alone. While the App is a good idea — and hey, I might even try it next time I’m traveling along — it does create a crutch.

Eating alone may seem uncomfortable at first, but it doesn’t take long to get used to it. I’m a solo diner if I’m in my home city or if I’m traveling. I like food and I like my independence. Throw the two together and I’m happily sitting alone people watching over dinner by myself. If you’ve ever skipped a meal or felt sad as your crammed McDonald’s into your mouth instead of real food, just because you didn’t want to dine-in alone, I encourage you to try it.

Savour your food, enjoy your own company, and don’t be afraid to order dessert!

Do you like to dine alone? Why or why not?

Leah is just waiting on a piece of paper to say she has her Bachelor of Journalism from Ryerson University in Toronto. She just wrapped up working on the Ryerson Review of Journalism. Now she is spending her obscene amount of free time baking tasty cupcakes and hunting for a job (hopefully that pays). Follow her @Elleandbee.

Comprehensive sex education is proved to work. It acknowledges that since some students will start having sex in high school (or earlier) that they might as well know how to do so safely. The national median of high school students having sex is 34.5 percent. In New York, where students receive progressive sex education the rate is 32 percent, while in Arizona, a state with conservative sex education, 35 per cent of students are sexually active.

Earlier this month, the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention released a study showing that the percentage of public schools teaching key topics related to sexual education did not increase in any of the 45 states surveyed. The study didn’t ask why schools were not teaching the topics, just what topics they were teaching. There are 11 recommended sex education categories, ranging from information about HIV/AIDS to the benefits of staying abstinent.

So where are teens turning for their sex ed information? For many it’s the internet. You know, that thing for porn. A survey done by a resident at the University of Western Ontario showed 40 percent of teens thought the internet was a more useful way to get information about sex ed than talking to their parents. The problem is, especially for teenage boys, that there is a lot of overly sexist information (take Tucker Max for instance) that is replacing good sex ed.

But, it doesn’t have to be this way. In my hometown of Calgary there’s a new program called WiseGuyz targeted specifically at teenage boys to both teach an updated version of sex ed while also teaching about healthy relationships and non-destructive masculinity. It’s an open forum for teenage boys to talk openly, with the facilitators recognizing that Grade 9 guys “consume a lot of pornography.” I think it’s a fresh approach that should be used an example.

What do you think? How should sexual education be taught in school?

Leah is just waiting on a piece of paper to say she has her Bachelor of Journalism from Ryerson University in Toronto. When she’s not working on the Ryerson Review of Journalism she’s baking tasty cupcakes and hunting for a job (hopefully that pays). Follow her @Elleandbee.

It’s a phrase that we’ve been hearing a lot lately. The “War on Women,” a battle that is sweeping across America, pushing women back decades. Both democrats and republicans have been accused of waging a war on women. This week things took an interesting turn when Hilary Rosen questioned Ann Romney’s ability to relate to women in America because she’d “never worked a day in her life.” Michelle Obama, jumped to Ann Romney’s defense, and Rosen was quickly denounced as she does not have any affiliation with the Obama campaign. As I’m no expert on American politics — I am, after all, Canadian — I thought I’d roundup some of the internet chatter about the “War on Women,” which really is just a fight to win over female voters. (A fight which Obama currently appears to be winning.)

• Slate political columnist, David Weigel, has declared “The War on Women is Over” following Rosengate
•  On the Washington Post‘s “She the People” blog, Delia Lloyd wrote about Romney’s camp’s claims that women have lost a higher percentage of jobs during the recession under Obama
• A new attack ad from Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett saying that he is concerned for “all women of Wisconsin” because of Governor Scott Walker’s repeal of the Equal Pay Enforcement Act
• On the Washington Post‘s “The Fact Checker” blog, Josh Hicks checked Romney’s campaign message saying “If you’re a stay-at-home mom, the Democrats have a message for you: You’ve never worked a day in your life.” 
• Jezebel has their take on when “Mitt and Ann Romney Accidentally Tell Us What They Really Think of the War on Women

What’s your take on the “War on Women?” What have you been reading about it?

Leah is one assignment away from her Bachelor of Journalism at Ryerson University in Toronto. When she’s not working on the Ryerson Review of Journalism she’s baking tasty cupcakes and hunting for a job (hopefully that pays). Follow her @Elleandbee.

[Lead image via dailykos.com]

Conservatives claim to love one thing more than anything else. And that’s cutting the size of government.

Yes, they want fewer taxes and less government spending. But recently it seems they also want to control contraception and other rights that affect women’s control over their reproductive systems. Unfortunately for those trying to make both these things happen is that they’re mutually exclusive. Limiting women’s reproductive rights is cancelling out the previous goal of reducing costs.

First off, there’s Medicaid. In 2006 it cost state and federal government $11-billion dollars to cover the cost of treatment and delivery of unintended pregnancies. It only costs $39 a year per female employee for companies who cover birth control—saving $9,000 per female employee over a two-year period.

It’s much cheaper to cover the costs of contraception, especially when paired with family planning services. It’s estimated these measures cut $19-billion in medical costs each year—while reducing the need for abortions (hey, Republicans! isn’t that what you want?)

The answers are really all there. As with many other aspects of healthcare, prevention is key, and most often the most affordable option. Giving women the right to determine their own reproductive rights would increase earning potential for women and could reduce strains on other social services.

What do you think? Do the numbers show it’s time to take a different approach?

Leah is so close to finishing her Bachelor of Journalism at Ryerson University in Toronto. When she’s not working on the Ryerson Review of Journalism she’s baking tasty cupcakes and hunting for a job (hopefully that pays). Follow her @Elleandbee. 

It’s time to pour out your plastic surgery piggy banks ladies because scientists say a better bra is all you need.

Scientists from Manchester University have finally proven what Stacey and Clinton taught me years ago—there is a connection between what you wear and how you feel. In a video study of 60 women aged 20 to 55, the women were filmed wearing push up bras and then their own, everyday bras.

The researchers monitored three behaviors that indicate confidence. When giving their girls an extra lift, women smiled at least 73 percent more, avoided eye contact less, and also touched their face less. The study showed that the participants acted more confident with more cleavage.

Gossard, a lingerie company, independently commissioned the study, for the launch of it’s latest boosting bra. The companies head designer said, “It just shows that you don’t have to go under the knife to achieve confidence-boosting killer cleavage.”

So there you have it. For the cost of one operation you could buy a life’s supply of cleavage boosting bras. If you’re worried some guy will complain when you take it off, I fully encourage using said bra to slingshot water balloons, tomatoes, or some other soft object at his head.

One Republican woman joined a group of mostly Democratic senators late last week to try and convince Republicans to support an extended version of the Violence Against Women Act.

The act started as a bill created in 1994 to provide money for “emergency shelters, counseling, rape crisis centers, and legal services for victims of sexual assault, domestic violence and stalking.” It passed seven years ago, making it through the Senate without opposition. But a month ago, the new version of the bill was voted down by eight Republican men on the panel. Currently the bill is just two sponsors shy of the 60-vote margin that would guarantee it being passed.

From what I’ve read, the bill is stuck because some politicians oppose the ideas behind the new language. To some, the new provisions appear controversial. Language to include same-sex couples and adding illegal immigrants to its protections are seen as issues by some senators. The Republican senator from Alaska who stood for the bill said: “The Violence Against Women Act is, I think, a ray of hope for those who service victims of domestic violence and sexual assault within our villages.”

Leah has her Bachelor of Journalism in sight with just over a month left at Ryerson University in Toronto. When she’s not working on the Ryerson Review of Journalism she’s baking tasty cupcakes and hunting for a job (hopefully that pays). Follow her @Elleandbee. 

Across the border in my home country of Canada, rates of STDs have rapidly been increasing since 2000. Syphilis cases have increased 10 times over, while chlamydia rates have increased 66 percent. Public-health experts are saying that this can partially be attributed to the popularity of online dating.

The problem is that people get to know each other in advance, so by the time they meet there are already increased levels of intimacy. Because of this felt intimacy, people are less likely to have a conversation about safe sex. Add this to the decrease in condom use among female college students, and it’s definitely something we should be talking about.

Public health agency statistics indicate that the more the HIV epidemic appears to become a thing of the past, the less people focus on a message of safe sex. There are, of course, other factors than just online dating, but the response should be the same. Communicate with your partners, practice safe sex, and get tested.

In California, the public health department is encouraging online-dating site owners to allow daters to have a safe-sex option in profiles and link to local HIV-testing venues with the option to send e-cards to past partners when results come in. It’ll be interesting to see if this ever happens.

Leah has her Bachelor of Journalism in sight with just over a month left at Ryerson University in Toronto. When she’s not working on the Ryerson Review of Journalism she’s baking tasty cupcakes and hunting for a job (hopefully that pays). Follow her @Elleandbee. 

[Lead image via badahos/Shutterstock]

By university, most ladies probably know someone who has battled with anorexia, bulimia or some form of an eating disorder. Though it’s not a gender specific disease, it is most prevalent in young women. Researchers from the London School of Economics recently did a study on eating disorders, finding them to be “socially transmitted diseases.”

This is the first ever economic analysis of anorexia and found that “social and cultural environment influences” influence young women to starve themselves in hopes of achieving what they consider to be the “perfect” body. The research is limited to Europe, but it did find that in countries where women are thinner, there is also a higher prevalence in eating disorders.

The economists also reported that they believe if the media reduces the mass imagery of tiny models or celebrities it could eliminate some of the social pressures women feel. They believe that governments should more carefully regulate the fashion industry — encouraging the regulation of models on runways and in fashion magazines.

It’s an interesting idea, but I’m not sure it’s one designers would be quick to support. Though there has been a slight increase in models with above average weights in the modelling world, they’re still not always that much bigger. Maybe Ford Models signing Kaela Humphries (who’s a size 16-18) is a sign of things to come?

Have you ever battled with an eating disorder? Did it stem from social pressures, or something else?

Leah has her Bachelor of Journalism in sight with just over a month left at Ryerson University in Toronto. When she’s not working on the Ryerson Review of Journalism she’s baking tasty cupcakes and hunting for a job (hopefully that pays). Follow her @Elleandbee. 

[Lead image via Lisa A /Shutterstock]

There are many heterosexual couples that say they won’t get married until after marriage equality is achieved and same sex marriage has been legalized — Brad and Angelina are probably the first couple that comes to mind. This isn’t a decision I’d ever have to think about because, well, same sex marriage is already legal in Canada where I’m from. It’s a decision I admire, and it’s cool to see that one woman has taken the fight for equality a step further.

Yes, an openly gay Texan judge has said she won’t perform marriages until she is able to get married to a person of her choosing. This week Tonya Parker told Stonewall Democrats:

“I don’t perform marriage ceremonies because we are in a state that does not have marriage equality, and until it does, I am not going to partially apply the law to one group of people that doesn’t apply to another group of people.’ And it’s kind of oxymoronic for me to perform ceremonies that can’t be performed for me, so I’m not going to do it.”

It’s a bold move that I completely support. In Canada churches are not required to marry two members of the same sex, and I don’t think a judge should have to perform marriages when they don’t support biased legislation.

[Lead image via Lasse Kristensen/Shutterstock]

After the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform filled a panel discussing President Obama’s Affordable Care Act and the birth control mandate with only men, it’s time to explain one thing. If you don’t use birth control you probably don’t fully understand it, am I right? Yes, and as such, many of the men who want to control your reproductive rights (Rick Santorum included) fail to realize the cost of birth control. Last week Santorum told CPAC that birth control costs “a few dollars.”

And well, this just isn’t true. The Center for American Progress released a report saying that the cost of birth control is prohibitive to many women. The pill, patch or ring (methods that are likely primary choices for college-aged women) can cost as much as $1,200 a year without insurance. This includes the cost of a visit to the doctor as well.

Sorry Santorum, but it’s not cheap. Even for women with insurance, certain types of birth control pills require forking over $50 a month out of pocket. What’s even more expensive? Having a baby. Money is the number one reason that women delay having kids. While birth control will always be cheaper than supporting a child, it can still put a dent in income. As a result of the cost, the report says almost half of young adult women don’t use their method as directed.

So let’s include some women into the decision making process and add some real insight into the birth control payer debate, okay?

[Lead image via lev dolgachov/Shutterstock]