二月二十五日
星期六
早上頹做了占，再跟你一家人上茶樓。唯一感覺是自己好不孝，自己有父母不陪.......
在尖沙咀走著走著，我們都好疲倦。看著不發一言好冷酷的你，我想，我不是一個好的女朋友，沒能使你快樂放鬆，只懂叫你擔憂。
二月二十六日
星期日
在地鐵車廂中給你發短訊時，我看見心中那個好脆弱的自己至瑟縮在一個黑暗的空間哭泣。快要碎裂。化成粉末。灰飛煙滅。我知要你分擔我的問題其實好自私，但對不起，我不能再這樣生活，我需要援手。對不起。
沉醉在舉辦公司的Fun Day讓我等到短暫的平安。
Monday, February 27, 2006
Friday, February 24, 2006
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
日記
中二那年的某一天
中文老師KK Ng說寫日記是磨練文筆的好辦法
自此便開始了寫日記
最初開始只是一天寫幾句
甚至幾天才一句
有時會畫插圖
都很隨心很誠實
正因如此
記載了很多秘密的日記本子是我的聖物
任何人也不可以碰
有一次我最好的朋友無意中翻動了它
我認真地生氣了好多天
高考那一陣子
溫習得天昏地暗
自然也沒時間心情寫日記了
直到大學一年級
為了男朋友
才開始認真的每天寫日記
是的，為了他
為了記下跟他一起的每一刻
（好慶幸自己有這樣做
現在有空時讀讀自己親手寫的文字
和他分享寫日記當時不敢說不想說的話
感覺好有趣）
記憶中自己有過5個網上日記
之前的都荒廢了
去年
為了讓不常聯絡的朋友知道自己的近況
開始了這個blog
雖然期間也有好幾個月疏於更新
雖然現在瀏覽和留言的人很少
雖然想他看的人都沒在看
都沒所謂了
可能有一天
你們都會再來
無論如何
寫blog以後
又停了寫日記本子
但感覺始終不夠暢快
說到底
我不知道誰在看我的blog
內容自然沒那麼深入和誠實
因此
我又開始在日記本子上爬格子了
希望透過認真的寫
更好地梳理自己的思緒
更深入地了解自己
更勇敢地面對真實的自己
更愛自己
中文老師KK Ng說寫日記是磨練文筆的好辦法
自此便開始了寫日記
最初開始只是一天寫幾句
甚至幾天才一句
有時會畫插圖
都很隨心很誠實
正因如此
記載了很多秘密的日記本子是我的聖物
任何人也不可以碰
有一次我最好的朋友無意中翻動了它
我認真地生氣了好多天
高考那一陣子
溫習得天昏地暗
自然也沒時間心情寫日記了
直到大學一年級
為了男朋友
才開始認真的每天寫日記
是的，為了他
為了記下跟他一起的每一刻
（好慶幸自己有這樣做
現在有空時讀讀自己親手寫的文字
和他分享寫日記當時不敢說不想說的話
感覺好有趣）
記憶中自己有過5個網上日記
之前的都荒廢了
去年
為了讓不常聯絡的朋友知道自己的近況
開始了這個blog
雖然期間也有好幾個月疏於更新
雖然現在瀏覽和留言的人很少
雖然想他看的人都沒在看
都沒所謂了
可能有一天
你們都會再來
無論如何
寫blog以後
又停了寫日記本子
但感覺始終不夠暢快
說到底
我不知道誰在看我的blog
內容自然沒那麼深入和誠實
因此
我又開始在日記本子上爬格子了
希望透過認真的寫
更好地梳理自己的思緒
更深入地了解自己
更勇敢地面對真實的自己
更愛自己
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Monday, February 20, 2006
Emotional Eating
Emotional Eating
If you are like most people, you are keenly aware that diet programs don't work for long. It's safe to say that no new diet or exercise regimen-no matter how biologically sound it may be-is likely to result in lifelong weight loss. But why is that? It's because you can't control what you eat.
The bottom line is that you already know how to lose weight. You know that if you eat less and exercise more eventually you'll see the pounds come off. But if you know that eating less and exercising more will result in weight loss, why don't you just do it? What's getting in your way? Or, if you do succeed in losing a little weight with a diet, why do you usually regain the weight you lost? Why can't you hold onto healthier habits as a way of life? Why do you overeat despite your best intentions?
The answer to all these questions is the same: emotional eating. Most simply defined, emotional eating means you eat to satisfy emotional hunger; it means you use food for comfort or as a way to cope with life; and it means you eat for reasons other than what your body needs.Take any moment in time, focus the camera lens on your neighborhood, take a close look, and you'll find emotional eating. You'll find dozens of people--maybe even hundreds or thousands--breaking their diets at this very second. All those people woke up this morning determined to stay away from fattening treats or eat reasonable portions, but by afternoon, many had one hand on the Twix Bar and the other on the forehead, wondering why, why on earth they had no willpower. In fact, you are probably one of those people. Maybe boredom at work has propelled you to the snack table, or a snub from a friend or an ugly new assignment. Whenever you reach for a boredom-breaking snack despite your commitment, or whenever you eat to quell anxiety, that's emotional eating. Whenever you binge after a fight, or double up on portions because your day turned sour, that's emotional eating. Whenever you feel that sharp craving for your favorite food, that's emotional eating.
When it comes to emotional eating, people aren't eating to feed their body. No one needs a candy bar after a fight to make it through the night. When people eat at times like these, they are eating to satisfy, numb, or avoid their emotions. And unfortunately, it's all too common. People who are suffering from emotional eating are driven to eat so they won't have to face what's bothering them internally. And in many ways, they become addicted to this way of handling life. They feel compelled to eat in this way and can't control what they eat. That's why diets don't work. If you're struggling with emotional eating and can't choose to eat less and exercise more, you can't lose weight. It's that simple. And since no diet ever teaches you how to control what you eat, they are doomed to fail sooner or later. In other words, unless you can learn to stop emotional eating, you will never be able to lose weight and keep it off.
Emotional Hunger
Emotional hunger is what fuels emotional eating. Unfortunately, you will always have emotional hunger no matter what you do. That's part of being human. However, emotional hunger is not so much the problem as how you deal with it.People who suffer from emotional eating usually only deal with emotional hunger by eating. And, since life is rife with emotional turmoil, emotional eaters are normally overweight. They are so attached to dealing with the ups and downs of life with food that any suggestion that they can stop emotional eating makes them nervous. Many people cannot imagine being able to handle a bad day without turning to food for comfort. In this way, the tendency to handle emotional hunger with food is no different then a smoker's tendency to handle stress with a cigarette.When you are an emotional eater, the odd thing about emotional hunger is that you feel truly hungry, and at the moment when the craving for food grips you, you can't tell that your hunger originates in your mind, not in your belly. People who are not emotional eaters, who never really satisfied emotional hunger with food, usually eat less when they are troubled by emotional hunger. Their emotional hunger doesn't feel like physical hunger, just as a non-smoker's stress doesn't give them the urge to smoke.I like to think of it this way: emotional eaters eat when they aren't really hungry because they have two stomachs--one real, the other a phantom. The hunger in your belly signals you when your system has a biological requirement for food. If that was the only signal of hunger you received, you'd be thin. It's the phantom stomach that causes the problems. The phantom stomach sends out a hunger signal when unruly emotions and unsolved personal agendas start pushing themselves into awareness. A short-circuit occurs, and you feel so hungry that you're compelled to eat.
See the power of the phantom stomach demonstrated almost daily in my work with patients. The other day, a patient who had just finished breakfast told me in the middle of a difficult session that she suddenly felt extremely hungry. As soon as we started talking about her sexual problems with her husband, her appetite kicked in and she could hardly wait to get to McDonald's. Her phantom stomach was shouting, demanding action.Phantom hunger has such power that it drives you to go to almost any lengths to satisfy it. I saw this fact demonstrated in Technicolor when I consulted at the Pritikin Institute in Santa Monica, California, where clients paid ten thousand dollars a month to take part in a controlled diet and exercise program. Although the tuition for the program far exceeded the cost of attending the most expensive private university in America, I frequently found participants sneaking out for hamburgers and French fries at a corner stand. These were all highly motivated people sent to Pritikin by their doctors because of serious, life-threatening health problems, but positive motivation clearly wasn't enough to help them resist phantom hunger. As you know, all dieting programs depend on positive motivation, ignoring the obvious: that there's such power in the emotional forces underlying the desire to binge or overeat that if you don't expose those forces and conquer them, you'll always be at their mercy--you'll always have weight problems.
Let's point out the main differences between emotional hunger and physical hunger so you can begin to differentiate between the two in your daily life.
First, emotional hunger normally comes on like lightening, while physical hunger develops slowly. Emotional hunger is like a rocket going off: it happens suddenly. Physical hunger develops little by little: first there's the tummy rumble, then the grumble and then it really starts complaining with hunger pangs. But, the slow stages of physical hunger are very different from the quick onset of emotional hunger.
Second, emotional hunger demands food immediately, whereas physical hunger is bit more patient. Much like its quick onset, emotional hunger demands immediate satisfaction. On the other hand, even if you are ravenously hungry, your physical hunger will wait for food.
The third difference between the two involves mindfulness. Satisfying physical hunger involves a deliberate choice and awareness of what's being eaten. How much of what's being eaten is noticed, meaning you can stop when full. However, emotional hunger on the other hand usually doesn't notice how, why or what's being eaten. Emotional hunger will even demand more food even after the person is stuffed.
Fourth, physical hunger is open to different types of foods, but emotional hunger often demands very particular foods in order to be fulfilled. If you're physically hungry, even carrots will look delicious. If you're emotionally hungry, however, only cake or ice cream might seem appealing.
Fifth, satisfying emotional hunger often results in guilt, or promises to do better next time. This is in sharp contrast with physical hunger, which is viewed as necessary to survival and therefore has no guilt attached to it.
And sixth, emotional hunger, of course, results from something emotionally upsetting, while physical hunger results from a physical need. Whenever you feel compelled to eat in a way that doesn't match the patience or speed of physical hunger, you are struggling with emotional eating and hunger.
http://www.masteringfood.com/ee_101.asp
If you are like most people, you are keenly aware that diet programs don't work for long. It's safe to say that no new diet or exercise regimen-no matter how biologically sound it may be-is likely to result in lifelong weight loss. But why is that? It's because you can't control what you eat.
The bottom line is that you already know how to lose weight. You know that if you eat less and exercise more eventually you'll see the pounds come off. But if you know that eating less and exercising more will result in weight loss, why don't you just do it? What's getting in your way? Or, if you do succeed in losing a little weight with a diet, why do you usually regain the weight you lost? Why can't you hold onto healthier habits as a way of life? Why do you overeat despite your best intentions?
The answer to all these questions is the same: emotional eating. Most simply defined, emotional eating means you eat to satisfy emotional hunger; it means you use food for comfort or as a way to cope with life; and it means you eat for reasons other than what your body needs.Take any moment in time, focus the camera lens on your neighborhood, take a close look, and you'll find emotional eating. You'll find dozens of people--maybe even hundreds or thousands--breaking their diets at this very second. All those people woke up this morning determined to stay away from fattening treats or eat reasonable portions, but by afternoon, many had one hand on the Twix Bar and the other on the forehead, wondering why, why on earth they had no willpower. In fact, you are probably one of those people. Maybe boredom at work has propelled you to the snack table, or a snub from a friend or an ugly new assignment. Whenever you reach for a boredom-breaking snack despite your commitment, or whenever you eat to quell anxiety, that's emotional eating. Whenever you binge after a fight, or double up on portions because your day turned sour, that's emotional eating. Whenever you feel that sharp craving for your favorite food, that's emotional eating.
When it comes to emotional eating, people aren't eating to feed their body. No one needs a candy bar after a fight to make it through the night. When people eat at times like these, they are eating to satisfy, numb, or avoid their emotions. And unfortunately, it's all too common. People who are suffering from emotional eating are driven to eat so they won't have to face what's bothering them internally. And in many ways, they become addicted to this way of handling life. They feel compelled to eat in this way and can't control what they eat. That's why diets don't work. If you're struggling with emotional eating and can't choose to eat less and exercise more, you can't lose weight. It's that simple. And since no diet ever teaches you how to control what you eat, they are doomed to fail sooner or later. In other words, unless you can learn to stop emotional eating, you will never be able to lose weight and keep it off.
Emotional Hunger
Emotional hunger is what fuels emotional eating. Unfortunately, you will always have emotional hunger no matter what you do. That's part of being human. However, emotional hunger is not so much the problem as how you deal with it.People who suffer from emotional eating usually only deal with emotional hunger by eating. And, since life is rife with emotional turmoil, emotional eaters are normally overweight. They are so attached to dealing with the ups and downs of life with food that any suggestion that they can stop emotional eating makes them nervous. Many people cannot imagine being able to handle a bad day without turning to food for comfort. In this way, the tendency to handle emotional hunger with food is no different then a smoker's tendency to handle stress with a cigarette.When you are an emotional eater, the odd thing about emotional hunger is that you feel truly hungry, and at the moment when the craving for food grips you, you can't tell that your hunger originates in your mind, not in your belly. People who are not emotional eaters, who never really satisfied emotional hunger with food, usually eat less when they are troubled by emotional hunger. Their emotional hunger doesn't feel like physical hunger, just as a non-smoker's stress doesn't give them the urge to smoke.I like to think of it this way: emotional eaters eat when they aren't really hungry because they have two stomachs--one real, the other a phantom. The hunger in your belly signals you when your system has a biological requirement for food. If that was the only signal of hunger you received, you'd be thin. It's the phantom stomach that causes the problems. The phantom stomach sends out a hunger signal when unruly emotions and unsolved personal agendas start pushing themselves into awareness. A short-circuit occurs, and you feel so hungry that you're compelled to eat.
See the power of the phantom stomach demonstrated almost daily in my work with patients. The other day, a patient who had just finished breakfast told me in the middle of a difficult session that she suddenly felt extremely hungry. As soon as we started talking about her sexual problems with her husband, her appetite kicked in and she could hardly wait to get to McDonald's. Her phantom stomach was shouting, demanding action.Phantom hunger has such power that it drives you to go to almost any lengths to satisfy it. I saw this fact demonstrated in Technicolor when I consulted at the Pritikin Institute in Santa Monica, California, where clients paid ten thousand dollars a month to take part in a controlled diet and exercise program. Although the tuition for the program far exceeded the cost of attending the most expensive private university in America, I frequently found participants sneaking out for hamburgers and French fries at a corner stand. These were all highly motivated people sent to Pritikin by their doctors because of serious, life-threatening health problems, but positive motivation clearly wasn't enough to help them resist phantom hunger. As you know, all dieting programs depend on positive motivation, ignoring the obvious: that there's such power in the emotional forces underlying the desire to binge or overeat that if you don't expose those forces and conquer them, you'll always be at their mercy--you'll always have weight problems.
Let's point out the main differences between emotional hunger and physical hunger so you can begin to differentiate between the two in your daily life.
First, emotional hunger normally comes on like lightening, while physical hunger develops slowly. Emotional hunger is like a rocket going off: it happens suddenly. Physical hunger develops little by little: first there's the tummy rumble, then the grumble and then it really starts complaining with hunger pangs. But, the slow stages of physical hunger are very different from the quick onset of emotional hunger.
Second, emotional hunger demands food immediately, whereas physical hunger is bit more patient. Much like its quick onset, emotional hunger demands immediate satisfaction. On the other hand, even if you are ravenously hungry, your physical hunger will wait for food.
The third difference between the two involves mindfulness. Satisfying physical hunger involves a deliberate choice and awareness of what's being eaten. How much of what's being eaten is noticed, meaning you can stop when full. However, emotional hunger on the other hand usually doesn't notice how, why or what's being eaten. Emotional hunger will even demand more food even after the person is stuffed.
Fourth, physical hunger is open to different types of foods, but emotional hunger often demands very particular foods in order to be fulfilled. If you're physically hungry, even carrots will look delicious. If you're emotionally hungry, however, only cake or ice cream might seem appealing.
Fifth, satisfying emotional hunger often results in guilt, or promises to do better next time. This is in sharp contrast with physical hunger, which is viewed as necessary to survival and therefore has no guilt attached to it.
And sixth, emotional hunger, of course, results from something emotionally upsetting, while physical hunger results from a physical need. Whenever you feel compelled to eat in a way that doesn't match the patience or speed of physical hunger, you are struggling with emotional eating and hunger.
http://www.masteringfood.com/ee_101.asp
Saturday, February 18, 2006
14/2 - 17/2
二月十四日
第一次見到辦公室女孩子收花的情景
好有趣
但我是認真的不喜歡收花
折現比較實際
二月十五日
是日Present
不過不失
比起其他MT
我真的好幸運
因為CCD和老細真的給了我很多機會
要努力
二月十六日
到會展和尖沙咀地盤拍外景
被酒店舊廈包圍的河內道很有電影感
教我想起麥兜菠蘿油王子
手機正式斷裂
借用老細的舊機Nokia8850
立即想起固執的林小姐
一切安好吧
二月十七日
拍外景@君頤峰
順勢在附近的QE午飯
遇見吳家榮
他該不認得我吧
累得要死
第一次見到辦公室女孩子收花的情景
好有趣
但我是認真的不喜歡收花
折現比較實際
二月十五日
是日Present
不過不失
比起其他MT
我真的好幸運
因為CCD和老細真的給了我很多機會
要努力
二月十六日
到會展和尖沙咀地盤拍外景
被酒店舊廈包圍的河內道很有電影感
教我想起麥兜菠蘿油王子
手機正式斷裂
借用老細的舊機Nokia8850
立即想起固執的林小姐
一切安好吧
二月十七日
拍外景@君頤峰
順勢在附近的QE午飯
遇見吳家榮
他該不認得我吧
累得要死
女少男多 形勢險峻
大學線
根據政府統計處數字，本港早在一九九七年漸露女多男少的趨勢，至二零零五年中，人口比例是一千名女性比九百二十二名男性。在二十至四十九歲的未婚組別中，擁有大學學歷的女性較男性多。加上愈來愈多港男到國內娶妻，令不少未婚的香港女士擔心不能覓得如意郎君。
高學歷成為擇偶障礙，女大學生首當其衝。本刊的調查結果顯示，三成四受訪的女大學生擔心找不到合適的結婚對象而孤獨終老，當中兩成認為香港男生數目太少，限制女性的選擇。有女大學生參加類似極速約會的活動，希望增加結識異性的機會。 （IRis: My dear girlfds, u r not alone!)
為了解本港女大學生在女多男少下對婚姻的看法，本刊於去年十一月以問卷形式，向六間大專院校的女生進行調查（包括香港中文大學、香港大學、香港科技大學、香港理工大學、香港浸會大學、香港城市大學），共收回三百一十五份問卷，回收率達九成五。
大學校園女多男少
從統計處二零零五年的資料可見，15至24歲年齡層的男女比例是一比一，所以不是全港每個年齡層都出現女多男少的問題。但大學的男女生比例仍然不均。女多男少的情況在各院校的學系中很普遍（見圖一），中大計量財務學系一年級的阿杰（化名）表示，男女失衡於中大特別明顯：「我乘校巴時經常留意到一半以上的乘客是女生。」城大英文與傳播學系一年級的Rainbow（化名）說，學系的女生比例非常高：「學系內七十人中只有三名男生。現在身邊男生少，較難認識男朋友。」
極速約會認識異性
調查顯示，受訪者擔心找不到合適的結婚對象的原因是「到現在仍未有固定的拍拖對象」。
中大新聞與傳播學院碩士生Cindy表示：「有時在街上見到不少『豬扒』（外貌平庸的女性）拖著一個不錯的男生時會不禁自問『我也不是太差，為甚麼沒有男朋友？』我曾特意買裙子穿，表現出女性化一面。」 (IRis: Which Cindy?)
有女大學生更透過參加極速約會而結識伴侶。城大心理學系三年級，身兼Hong Kong Speed Date負責人的Rachael表示，兩年前因為擔心生活圈子太窄，結識不到男朋友，所以參加Speed Dating（極速約會）：「第一次時出席的男士不太適合我，所以我參加第二次，那次我結識了兩個外籍男士，但因文化差異而未能繼續發展。自此我認為這行業有發展空間，便與朋友開設一間專門負責極速約會的公司，我現在拍拖一年的男朋友就是透過這間公司結識的。」
中大社會學系與港大社會科學系的系會，為讓大學生加深對社會學的認識，本年十月合辦一個名為reflections on speed dating的活動（極速約會的反思），除了辦講座外，並讓每對男女交談四分鐘。中大社會學系系會幹事陳蔚婷表示，這次活動反應理想：「學生就算對社會學沒興趣，也會對異性有興趣吧！今次兩間大學分別有八男八女參加活動，其中女生名額比男生較早爆滿。」
女生：男生質素差
近半受訪的女生表示擔心香港的男生質素太差，不合要求。
香港大學法律系四年級的關愷瑩說：「香港男生給我的整體印象是能力及不上女孩子，例如學習上女生成績一向較好，讀法律的學生已算是社會上最精英的一群，但系內男生人數很少。」 (IRis: 賢兄，你好筍喎)
中大綜合工商管理學系Mary（化名）則認為，香港男生沒風度兼沒內涵：「我曾經在球場練習時，有一群男生與我『爭場』，把籃球亂飛。」
香港大學法律系四年級的李心怡也表示，香港男生的思想孩子氣、不夠成熟：「他們常把男女平等掛在嘴邊，完全不遷就女孩子，會在食堂或汽車上與女孩子爭座位。」 (IRis:男女平等＝遷就女孩子？！）
而Rainbow的同學GM（化名）沒打算以香港男性作為結婚對象：「我覺得香港男性較懶散和沒有責任感，我認識有個男生，約了女孩子也可以為了跟朋友打機而臨時失約，所以我一心打算找外國男生作為對象。近年女性的學歷較高，我認為男性的外貌已不是最重要，反而我會多考慮男性的內涵。」
女生學歷高 提升擇偶要求
說到內涵，不少受訪的女大學生表示，要求另一半至少有大學程度，調查更發現六成四女大學生在拍拖時會考慮男朋友作為結婚對象，所以拍拖時會較審慎。Cindy的同學，也是中大碩生的Victoria要求男友的學歷至少要與她相等：「我希望我的男友談吐得體，而我覺得學歷會影響一個人的談吐風範。」
浸會大學國際學院商業學二年級生Joyce認為：「我對伴侶要求高，希望對方有大學學位，但香港有大學學位的男生較少，故我的選擇相對少，只好抱『有就有，無就算』的心態。」Rainbow也認為：「我心目中的男朋友學歷要跟我相近，才會較易明白對方的想法。」
香港浸會大學社會學系副教授邵一鳴表示：「愈高教育水平的女性愈容易嫁不出，因為根據固有的傳統觀念，女士都希望找一個比自己能幹及有較高學歷的男士作伴侶。」
男仍希望比女伴能幹
女大學生對男伴的學歷水平要求高，但男大學生卻不希望女友比自己能幹。阿杰表示：「要女友跟我一起『迫巴士』實在難為了她，我也絕不讓女友在吃飯時付錢！男生要學功夫才有能力保護女友，事業也要有成，才能使女朋友有安全感，我不會接受妻子的薪金比我高。」
香港大學二年級的阿偉（化名）卻不介意女伴的人工比他高，但女伴從事行業的社會地位就不可比他高。邵一鳴認為十位男生有九位都不希望女友比自己能幹︰「由小孩時代，男性已被灌輸『男主外，女主內』這個家庭觀念。直到現在，這傳統觀念依然是根深蒂固，很難改變。」
寧缺勿濫
雖然不少女大學生擔心找不到合適的結婚對象，但調查發現表示擔心的人中，有八成五人不會因男性數量減少而降低擇偶條件，李心怡就是其中一個。「要是找不到心目中的理想對象的話，我寧願獨身，我不會因為女多男少而降低要求。」Rainbow則認為，若找不到另一半也可當女強人，不一定靠男人。
邵一鳴認為問題的解決辦法不是要女生放下身段降低擇偶標準，因為男生同樣介意對方成就太高︰「長遠需要轉變一些固有傳統價值以改變社會對兩性角色的看法，不可以繼續把女性看成從屬性別。」
對婚姻改觀致遲婚
本刊調查又顯示，近九成女大學生表示將來會結婚，當中兩成希望三十至三十五歲才結婚。不打算結婚的女生中，有四成六是由於沒有信心維持婚姻。
邵一鳴表示當教育水平提高，女性對婚姻的考慮也有所改變︰「從前結婚是為負起建立大家庭的集體責任，現在則是以考慮自己事業發展和前途為主的個人利益，所以會選擇遲婚。」
根據政府統計處數字，本港早在一九九七年漸露女多男少的趨勢，至二零零五年中，人口比例是一千名女性比九百二十二名男性。在二十至四十九歲的未婚組別中，擁有大學學歷的女性較男性多。加上愈來愈多港男到國內娶妻，令不少未婚的香港女士擔心不能覓得如意郎君。
高學歷成為擇偶障礙，女大學生首當其衝。本刊的調查結果顯示，三成四受訪的女大學生擔心找不到合適的結婚對象而孤獨終老，當中兩成認為香港男生數目太少，限制女性的選擇。有女大學生參加類似極速約會的活動，希望增加結識異性的機會。 （IRis: My dear girlfds, u r not alone!)
為了解本港女大學生在女多男少下對婚姻的看法，本刊於去年十一月以問卷形式，向六間大專院校的女生進行調查（包括香港中文大學、香港大學、香港科技大學、香港理工大學、香港浸會大學、香港城市大學），共收回三百一十五份問卷，回收率達九成五。
大學校園女多男少
從統計處二零零五年的資料可見，15至24歲年齡層的男女比例是一比一，所以不是全港每個年齡層都出現女多男少的問題。但大學的男女生比例仍然不均。女多男少的情況在各院校的學系中很普遍（見圖一），中大計量財務學系一年級的阿杰（化名）表示，男女失衡於中大特別明顯：「我乘校巴時經常留意到一半以上的乘客是女生。」城大英文與傳播學系一年級的Rainbow（化名）說，學系的女生比例非常高：「學系內七十人中只有三名男生。現在身邊男生少，較難認識男朋友。」
極速約會認識異性
調查顯示，受訪者擔心找不到合適的結婚對象的原因是「到現在仍未有固定的拍拖對象」。
中大新聞與傳播學院碩士生Cindy表示：「有時在街上見到不少『豬扒』（外貌平庸的女性）拖著一個不錯的男生時會不禁自問『我也不是太差，為甚麼沒有男朋友？』我曾特意買裙子穿，表現出女性化一面。」 (IRis: Which Cindy?)
有女大學生更透過參加極速約會而結識伴侶。城大心理學系三年級，身兼Hong Kong Speed Date負責人的Rachael表示，兩年前因為擔心生活圈子太窄，結識不到男朋友，所以參加Speed Dating（極速約會）：「第一次時出席的男士不太適合我，所以我參加第二次，那次我結識了兩個外籍男士，但因文化差異而未能繼續發展。自此我認為這行業有發展空間，便與朋友開設一間專門負責極速約會的公司，我現在拍拖一年的男朋友就是透過這間公司結識的。」
中大社會學系與港大社會科學系的系會，為讓大學生加深對社會學的認識，本年十月合辦一個名為reflections on speed dating的活動（極速約會的反思），除了辦講座外，並讓每對男女交談四分鐘。中大社會學系系會幹事陳蔚婷表示，這次活動反應理想：「學生就算對社會學沒興趣，也會對異性有興趣吧！今次兩間大學分別有八男八女參加活動，其中女生名額比男生較早爆滿。」
女生：男生質素差
近半受訪的女生表示擔心香港的男生質素太差，不合要求。
香港大學法律系四年級的關愷瑩說：「香港男生給我的整體印象是能力及不上女孩子，例如學習上女生成績一向較好，讀法律的學生已算是社會上最精英的一群，但系內男生人數很少。」 (IRis: 賢兄，你好筍喎)
中大綜合工商管理學系Mary（化名）則認為，香港男生沒風度兼沒內涵：「我曾經在球場練習時，有一群男生與我『爭場』，把籃球亂飛。」
香港大學法律系四年級的李心怡也表示，香港男生的思想孩子氣、不夠成熟：「他們常把男女平等掛在嘴邊，完全不遷就女孩子，會在食堂或汽車上與女孩子爭座位。」 (IRis:男女平等＝遷就女孩子？！）
而Rainbow的同學GM（化名）沒打算以香港男性作為結婚對象：「我覺得香港男性較懶散和沒有責任感，我認識有個男生，約了女孩子也可以為了跟朋友打機而臨時失約，所以我一心打算找外國男生作為對象。近年女性的學歷較高，我認為男性的外貌已不是最重要，反而我會多考慮男性的內涵。」
女生學歷高 提升擇偶要求
說到內涵，不少受訪的女大學生表示，要求另一半至少有大學程度，調查更發現六成四女大學生在拍拖時會考慮男朋友作為結婚對象，所以拍拖時會較審慎。Cindy的同學，也是中大碩生的Victoria要求男友的學歷至少要與她相等：「我希望我的男友談吐得體，而我覺得學歷會影響一個人的談吐風範。」
浸會大學國際學院商業學二年級生Joyce認為：「我對伴侶要求高，希望對方有大學學位，但香港有大學學位的男生較少，故我的選擇相對少，只好抱『有就有，無就算』的心態。」Rainbow也認為：「我心目中的男朋友學歷要跟我相近，才會較易明白對方的想法。」
香港浸會大學社會學系副教授邵一鳴表示：「愈高教育水平的女性愈容易嫁不出，因為根據固有的傳統觀念，女士都希望找一個比自己能幹及有較高學歷的男士作伴侶。」
男仍希望比女伴能幹
女大學生對男伴的學歷水平要求高，但男大學生卻不希望女友比自己能幹。阿杰表示：「要女友跟我一起『迫巴士』實在難為了她，我也絕不讓女友在吃飯時付錢！男生要學功夫才有能力保護女友，事業也要有成，才能使女朋友有安全感，我不會接受妻子的薪金比我高。」
香港大學二年級的阿偉（化名）卻不介意女伴的人工比他高，但女伴從事行業的社會地位就不可比他高。邵一鳴認為十位男生有九位都不希望女友比自己能幹︰「由小孩時代，男性已被灌輸『男主外，女主內』這個家庭觀念。直到現在，這傳統觀念依然是根深蒂固，很難改變。」
寧缺勿濫
雖然不少女大學生擔心找不到合適的結婚對象，但調查發現表示擔心的人中，有八成五人不會因男性數量減少而降低擇偶條件，李心怡就是其中一個。「要是找不到心目中的理想對象的話，我寧願獨身，我不會因為女多男少而降低要求。」Rainbow則認為，若找不到另一半也可當女強人，不一定靠男人。
邵一鳴認為問題的解決辦法不是要女生放下身段降低擇偶標準，因為男生同樣介意對方成就太高︰「長遠需要轉變一些固有傳統價值以改變社會對兩性角色的看法，不可以繼續把女性看成從屬性別。」
對婚姻改觀致遲婚
本刊調查又顯示，近九成女大學生表示將來會結婚，當中兩成希望三十至三十五歲才結婚。不打算結婚的女生中，有四成六是由於沒有信心維持婚姻。
邵一鳴表示當教育水平提高，女性對婚姻的考慮也有所改變︰「從前結婚是為負起建立大家庭的集體責任，現在則是以考慮自己事業發展和前途為主的個人利益，所以會選擇遲婚。」
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Friday, February 10, 2006
I am a rainbow
| You Are a Rainbow |
 You are best known for: your beauty Your dominant state: seducing |
What Type of Weather Are You?
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Monday, February 06, 2006
Saturday, February 04, 2006
月巴
久久不敢上磅
今早一磅
SHIT!
一年以來的新高！
比去澳洲時肥了足足9磅
9磅!
唉
上班以來根本沒運動
每天就是吃坐睡
過年時跟爸爸媽媽在一起
我又會刻意的表演大吃大喝
那可惡的數字教我不敢怠慢
立即上健身房
可惜疏於操練的我
半行半跑了4K便沒有心情
春裝夏裝正在呼喚我啊
要加油！
今早一磅
SHIT!
一年以來的新高！
比去澳洲時肥了足足9磅
9磅!
唉
上班以來根本沒運動
每天就是吃坐睡
過年時跟爸爸媽媽在一起
我又會刻意的表演大吃大喝
那可惡的數字教我不敢怠慢
立即上健身房
可惜疏於操練的我
半行半跑了4K便沒有心情
春裝夏裝正在呼喚我啊
要加油！
Friday, February 03, 2006
Thursday, February 02, 2006
The police are a bunch of monkeys
Science & Technology
Animal behaviour
The police are a bunch of monkeys
Jan 26th 2006
The Economist
Simian society, too, needs the forces of law and order
MOST people, even the law-abiding, have ambiguous feelings towards the police. They are a salvation when it comes to protecting life, limb and property, but their efforts are, perhaps, slightly less welcome if your foot happens to slip momentarily on the accelerator. Few, however, would argue that human societies could dispense with their activities altogether. Even in villages, where everybody knows everybody else and social disapproval and the near-certainty of exposure are enough to discourage most criminal acts, the local bobby is a reassuring presence.
Most people, too, would assume such policing is uniquely human. But they would be wrong—at least if Jessica Flack, of the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico, and her colleagues are correct. For Dr Flack thinks that monkey societies also have police. Moreover, removing those police makes such societies less happy places.
Keystone cops
The police in Dr Flack's monkey societies are not specially assigned task forces, but small coteries of high-ranking individuals. The point about these individuals' behaviour is that, unlike most so-called alpha animals, they do not just defend their own interests. They do that, too, of course. But they also intervene to break up conflicts between lower-ranking individuals in an apparently disinterested way.
Dr Flack had discovered this behaviour in earlier research. Her latest work, just published in Nature, looked at how important policing is in maintaining harmony in the monkeys she studies, an Asian species called the pigtailed macaque. To do so, she went to the opposite end of the biological scale from that occupied by ethology (the science of animal behaviour) and borrowed a technique from genetics, called knockout analysis. In genetics, this involves “knocking out” a particular gene and seeing what effect its absence has on a cell's biochemical network. In ethology, it involves removing particular animals from a group and seeing what effect that has on the group's social network.
Dr Flack's troop was comprised of 84 animals (of whom 45 were adults). She knew that three males in the group and one female were on the receiving end of a disproportionate number of acts of submissive behaviour. She also observed that these individuals acted as a police force by breaking up fights. Crucially, they did this by interposing themselves between the opponents, or threatening them both simultaneously and, as far as it was possible to see, impartially.
To look at the effect of such policing, the team first recorded details of the social network between members of the group. They looked at such things as grooming, sitting in contact with or close to others, and play. Then they rounded up and removed the male police for ten hours on a randomly chosen day once a fortnight (they left the female because they thought that removing her would be socially disruptive for other reasons). Ten hours was reckoned long enough for the effects of the police's absence to be noticed, but not so long that the remaining males would start manoeuvring to occupy the vacant alpha positions.
It turned out that policing is the keystone of macaque society. Removing the police resulted in the remaining monkeys grooming fewer others, playing with fewer others and dividing up into cliques as the social network that held the troop together broke down. The number of aggressive incidents also increased.
Dr Flack thinks that the role of policing in these monkeys is to allow individuals to socialise widely at little risk and thus hold a large troop together, since the police will intervene if things get out of hand. The benefit to the police themselves, presumably, is the size of the troop, with the attendant virtues of defensive strength and (for the males) more available females. In simian as in human society, rank hath its privilege—and its obligations, too.
Animal behaviour
The police are a bunch of monkeys
Jan 26th 2006
The Economist
Simian society, too, needs the forces of law and order
MOST people, even the law-abiding, have ambiguous feelings towards the police. They are a salvation when it comes to protecting life, limb and property, but their efforts are, perhaps, slightly less welcome if your foot happens to slip momentarily on the accelerator. Few, however, would argue that human societies could dispense with their activities altogether. Even in villages, where everybody knows everybody else and social disapproval and the near-certainty of exposure are enough to discourage most criminal acts, the local bobby is a reassuring presence.
Most people, too, would assume such policing is uniquely human. But they would be wrong—at least if Jessica Flack, of the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico, and her colleagues are correct. For Dr Flack thinks that monkey societies also have police. Moreover, removing those police makes such societies less happy places.
Keystone cops
The police in Dr Flack's monkey societies are not specially assigned task forces, but small coteries of high-ranking individuals. The point about these individuals' behaviour is that, unlike most so-called alpha animals, they do not just defend their own interests. They do that, too, of course. But they also intervene to break up conflicts between lower-ranking individuals in an apparently disinterested way.
Dr Flack had discovered this behaviour in earlier research. Her latest work, just published in Nature, looked at how important policing is in maintaining harmony in the monkeys she studies, an Asian species called the pigtailed macaque. To do so, she went to the opposite end of the biological scale from that occupied by ethology (the science of animal behaviour) and borrowed a technique from genetics, called knockout analysis. In genetics, this involves “knocking out” a particular gene and seeing what effect its absence has on a cell's biochemical network. In ethology, it involves removing particular animals from a group and seeing what effect that has on the group's social network.
Dr Flack's troop was comprised of 84 animals (of whom 45 were adults). She knew that three males in the group and one female were on the receiving end of a disproportionate number of acts of submissive behaviour. She also observed that these individuals acted as a police force by breaking up fights. Crucially, they did this by interposing themselves between the opponents, or threatening them both simultaneously and, as far as it was possible to see, impartially.
To look at the effect of such policing, the team first recorded details of the social network between members of the group. They looked at such things as grooming, sitting in contact with or close to others, and play. Then they rounded up and removed the male police for ten hours on a randomly chosen day once a fortnight (they left the female because they thought that removing her would be socially disruptive for other reasons). Ten hours was reckoned long enough for the effects of the police's absence to be noticed, but not so long that the remaining males would start manoeuvring to occupy the vacant alpha positions.
It turned out that policing is the keystone of macaque society. Removing the police resulted in the remaining monkeys grooming fewer others, playing with fewer others and dividing up into cliques as the social network that held the troop together broke down. The number of aggressive incidents also increased.
Dr Flack thinks that the role of policing in these monkeys is to allow individuals to socialise widely at little risk and thus hold a large troop together, since the police will intervene if things get out of hand. The benefit to the police themselves, presumably, is the size of the troop, with the attendant virtues of defensive strength and (for the males) more available females. In simian as in human society, rank hath its privilege—and its obligations, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)