Before I start I just want to say a few things. I am not a smoker. No one in my family is a smoker. Nor is any of us employed in the tobacco industry or otherwise affected by it.
This morning on BBC News, just before 7:30, a pro-smoking campaigner was speaking out against a new anti-smoking television advertisement and surprisingly I agreed with him whole heartedly.
The advertisement in question shows smoke creeping throughout a house and wreathing around a child - the point being to not smoke around children. Well, obviously I agree with the sentiment, as indeed did the pro-smoking campaigner, but he made several really important points:
Asthma in children has increased whilst smoking rates are decreasing. Blaming smokers for their children's health problems is not necessarily justified. Plenty of children of non-smokers suffer asthma and other illnesses "associated with smoking".
The same advert could have been made for any other pollutant - such as dustmites or the chemicals that impregnate our carpets, sofas etc. The interviewer's come back was that those pollutants are unavoidable. This is simply not true. Admittedly the alternatives can prove impractical and expensive - hard floors, washable rugs, alternative furniture and air-conditioning units are all potential solutions only really worth considering if someone in your home has a severe allergy.
The 50s and 60s babyboomers were a generation largely raised in smoky homes and yet people are living longer and healthier lives. No one is suggesting smoke is good for you but can it really be as dangerous as it's made out? I was raised in a smoke free home and yet I am asthmatic; I know people who were raised by chain smokers who are perfectly healthy. Hardly conclusive but certainly suggestive.
But the most important point is this; how far are the Government going to go in dictating people's actions in their own homes? We've already had cases of parents being prosecuted for allowing their children (subsequently taken into care) to become obese and yet strangely drug addicts seem to regularly retain custody of their offspring.
In my OU course I've recently been looking at the Communist dictatorships of Russia (via Stalin) and China (via His Holiness The Dalai Lama) and I can certainly see a parallel between those dictatorships and the increasing interference of the state in our supposed democracy. How much more control does the Government want over what people choose to do in the privacy of their own homes? Whilst I don't think parents should smoke around their kids should having children mean you no longer have freedom of choice? Perhaps children should be offered freedom of choice - and be able to leave smoky homes...or neglectful homes, drunken homes, homes with parents who fight all the time? Why is it that a child can't get away from any number of bad - but not criminally so - situations until they are at least 16 years old?
Saturday, 31 March 2012
Sunday, 5 February 2012
Cookie Cutter Culture
This week I read a very disturbing article about Cookie Cutter Culture (hereafter refered to as CCC) - by which I mean the one-size-fits-all approach adopted through so many aspects of life.
The article dealt with complaints from charities that they are losing many of their best volunteers to the British Government's Welfare-To-Work programme.
"What's wrong with that?!" I hear you cry. "If someone can volunteer they can get a job!"
Well, that's the problem. Welfare-To-Work isn't about employment, it's about crunching numbers and ticking boxes.
From my own experience I know that the staff at the JobCentre aren't interested in helping you, or getting you into worthwhile employment. They're not interested in your qualifications or skills or aptitude. They want you to take any job that means they can tick you off their list, no matter how unsuitable it is. If you're back in a month cos it didn't work out they don't care.
I was stressed out of my mind dealing with the JobCentre. My "advisor" was just a bully to whom I was another worthless dole-scrounger. I had genuine concerns about returning to work which were well founded. Their "help" was non-existent and fortunately I found a job without their interferance...although they still took credit for it!
So back to the point...these charity volunteers are often well educated people, university graduates even. Often they are volunteering to get experience in their chosen sector, waiting for a window of opportunity to allow them to get their foot on the ladder.
The article I refer to drew on cases of such people who, under Welfare-To-Work, were unable to continue volunteering as they were instead made to take degrading classes in 'how to write a CV' or forced to take minimum wage dead-end jobs like shelf-stacking. Who does this help? These people need plenty of additional financial support to make ends meet - it's hardly being off the dole! These people aren't improving their employment prospects, they're not using their potential. Also, these are low IQ jobs that are being denied to genuinely low IQ job seekers!
The Welfare-To-Work programme is based on one very flawed system - not the benefits system itself but CCC. Everyone is expected to fit a certain stereotype and the solution ONLY fits to them. They expect people on benefits to be lazy and ill educated and they have no flexibility for anyone who doesn't fit that criteria.
Imagine being a university graduate who is being ordered to take a class aimed at the barely literate. Being put on a 'work-preparedness' course - whatever that is supposed to mean - which ends in the chaos of a bunch of heavily tattooed ex-cons discussing bank robbery! I kid thee not. It's insane!
CCC is infecting every part of our world. Such as schools that don't encourage bright children but who hold them back - segregated into classes by their age not ability. Such as doctors hounding or criticising patients who don't want to be prodded and poked and tested for the zillion and one things that could be wrong with them but probably aren't, or for refusing to take the "precautionary" meds that have a list of side effects as long as your arm...
Would it really be so difficult to match people to available jobs by aptitude and credentials? Or to offer them the back-to-work help most suited to their needs? Or to move a smart child up a class or two at school? Or to lay off the "patient" who feels fine and doesn't want to see the doctor (and lets face it, if YOU want to see the doctor it's a whole different ball game)?
Personally I shouldn't have thought any of these things would be so very hard.
At the end of the day it is your life and your choices but I beg of you to at least consider, where you come up against CCC COMPLAIN! REBEL! REFUSE TO CONFORM!
The article dealt with complaints from charities that they are losing many of their best volunteers to the British Government's Welfare-To-Work programme.
"What's wrong with that?!" I hear you cry. "If someone can volunteer they can get a job!"
Well, that's the problem. Welfare-To-Work isn't about employment, it's about crunching numbers and ticking boxes.
From my own experience I know that the staff at the JobCentre aren't interested in helping you, or getting you into worthwhile employment. They're not interested in your qualifications or skills or aptitude. They want you to take any job that means they can tick you off their list, no matter how unsuitable it is. If you're back in a month cos it didn't work out they don't care.
I was stressed out of my mind dealing with the JobCentre. My "advisor" was just a bully to whom I was another worthless dole-scrounger. I had genuine concerns about returning to work which were well founded. Their "help" was non-existent and fortunately I found a job without their interferance...although they still took credit for it!
So back to the point...these charity volunteers are often well educated people, university graduates even. Often they are volunteering to get experience in their chosen sector, waiting for a window of opportunity to allow them to get their foot on the ladder.
The article I refer to drew on cases of such people who, under Welfare-To-Work, were unable to continue volunteering as they were instead made to take degrading classes in 'how to write a CV' or forced to take minimum wage dead-end jobs like shelf-stacking. Who does this help? These people need plenty of additional financial support to make ends meet - it's hardly being off the dole! These people aren't improving their employment prospects, they're not using their potential. Also, these are low IQ jobs that are being denied to genuinely low IQ job seekers!
The Welfare-To-Work programme is based on one very flawed system - not the benefits system itself but CCC. Everyone is expected to fit a certain stereotype and the solution ONLY fits to them. They expect people on benefits to be lazy and ill educated and they have no flexibility for anyone who doesn't fit that criteria.
Imagine being a university graduate who is being ordered to take a class aimed at the barely literate. Being put on a 'work-preparedness' course - whatever that is supposed to mean - which ends in the chaos of a bunch of heavily tattooed ex-cons discussing bank robbery! I kid thee not. It's insane!
CCC is infecting every part of our world. Such as schools that don't encourage bright children but who hold them back - segregated into classes by their age not ability. Such as doctors hounding or criticising patients who don't want to be prodded and poked and tested for the zillion and one things that could be wrong with them but probably aren't, or for refusing to take the "precautionary" meds that have a list of side effects as long as your arm...
Would it really be so difficult to match people to available jobs by aptitude and credentials? Or to offer them the back-to-work help most suited to their needs? Or to move a smart child up a class or two at school? Or to lay off the "patient" who feels fine and doesn't want to see the doctor (and lets face it, if YOU want to see the doctor it's a whole different ball game)?
Personally I shouldn't have thought any of these things would be so very hard.
At the end of the day it is your life and your choices but I beg of you to at least consider, where you come up against CCC COMPLAIN! REBEL! REFUSE TO CONFORM!
Sunday, 23 October 2011
Changes
Y'know how sometimes you feel like you've been stuck in a rut FOREVER? Then, in an almost bizarre series of events it seems like everything changes all at once; like your life is being written by a soap-opera scriptwriter who thought "Aha! We haven't done anything with that character for ages!" ?
Well, my life has felt a bit like that of late.
There I was, minding my own business, dragging myself through day after day of mind-numbing tedium when, without warning, everything started shifting around me.
Don't get me wrong, I was thrilled to bits when I got my job (or two jobs) - after 6 months of looking for work, 15 years of being a full-time mum, during a recession and with a "back to work advisor" who was making me physically ill with stress there was a huge relief to it.
But I can't say the situation was in any way ideal. I was working as a cleaner when my qualifications and experience would indicate an office job. I was working two shifts a day - one 0545-0745 and another 1700-1900 - which meant I mostly ended up sleeping 4 hours during the day, 4 at night. Just about enough sleep but on a crazy schedule. Then there's the fact I was walking approx 8km per day JUST getting to and from work. Add to that four hours on me feet at work it's no wonder that after 16 months I was almost crippled with plantar fasciitis, an incredibly painful condition of the feet.
As I headed off on my summer holiday, a welcome extension of my sick leave, I was desperately worried about what I was going to do. The job market was still flat as a pancake, I was severely limited by the limitations put on back-to-work mums (16-20 hours a week only) and I couldn't see a way out.
Change One: Thinking of Studying
Whilst I was away I got a phone call. I had taken some adult learning courses a few years back and it was one of my old tutors asking if I'd be interested in her latest ECDL class. I was really excited by the idea, even though in practical terms it would prove to be a huge challenge - not intellectually (the course was an updated version of something I had already done) but physically. I was already so incredibly tired.
Change Two: A New Direction
I got home and went to visit a friend. I was all excited about the possibility of studying again until I heard her news: following a bad experience with a dodgy correspondance course she'd decided to enrol and study for an Open University degree!
My first reaction was HOW? I'd looked into it years earlier and been given to understand I couldn't because I had no A-Levels (or equivalent). I knew my friend didn't have any either but she assured me it wasn't necessary. The ECDL course went straight out the window!
I went home and requested a prospectus.
I sat on the idea for a while. Six years of studying (to complete a degree part time) is a huge undertaking. Especially with my work life - would it be possible? Also, would I be eligible for financial assistance or the cost would be a major issue. But the over-riding feeling was "if SHE can get a degree I damn well want one too!" I was absolutely desperate for something to change.
Change Three: A Timely Opportunity
I had already begun the enrollment process when another change clicked into place: a new job! Still cleaning for the same company but 0800-1000, with a promotion too. So now I'm walking just 60% of what I was doing before and life is a lot easier. My feet are finally starting to heal up and things are looking pretty good right now. I'm working 6 days a week but I feel like I have so much more time...and plenty of time for study!
Mind you, I'm still struggling trying to get my bodyclock back on track but my course doesn't start until February so I have some time to get myself together. Enrollment is complete, I've bought my set texts, set up a study, signed up for some additional complementary classes...
If things can just stay as they are for a few years it'll be a big help. There's gonna be another change in early 2015 but thankfully I'll be more than halfway through my studies by then.
STEPDAD UPDATE
He had his surgery for bowel cancer, and two more follow up ops cos they punctured his spleen and eventually had to have it removed. He had a very rough time of it and lost a huge amount of weight but they think they got all the cancer. He's not having chemo and is just waiting for reversal surgery. So relieved he's okay!
Well, my life has felt a bit like that of late.
There I was, minding my own business, dragging myself through day after day of mind-numbing tedium when, without warning, everything started shifting around me.
Don't get me wrong, I was thrilled to bits when I got my job (or two jobs) - after 6 months of looking for work, 15 years of being a full-time mum, during a recession and with a "back to work advisor" who was making me physically ill with stress there was a huge relief to it.
But I can't say the situation was in any way ideal. I was working as a cleaner when my qualifications and experience would indicate an office job. I was working two shifts a day - one 0545-0745 and another 1700-1900 - which meant I mostly ended up sleeping 4 hours during the day, 4 at night. Just about enough sleep but on a crazy schedule. Then there's the fact I was walking approx 8km per day JUST getting to and from work. Add to that four hours on me feet at work it's no wonder that after 16 months I was almost crippled with plantar fasciitis, an incredibly painful condition of the feet.
As I headed off on my summer holiday, a welcome extension of my sick leave, I was desperately worried about what I was going to do. The job market was still flat as a pancake, I was severely limited by the limitations put on back-to-work mums (16-20 hours a week only) and I couldn't see a way out.
Change One: Thinking of Studying
Whilst I was away I got a phone call. I had taken some adult learning courses a few years back and it was one of my old tutors asking if I'd be interested in her latest ECDL class. I was really excited by the idea, even though in practical terms it would prove to be a huge challenge - not intellectually (the course was an updated version of something I had already done) but physically. I was already so incredibly tired.
Change Two: A New Direction
I got home and went to visit a friend. I was all excited about the possibility of studying again until I heard her news: following a bad experience with a dodgy correspondance course she'd decided to enrol and study for an Open University degree!
My first reaction was HOW? I'd looked into it years earlier and been given to understand I couldn't because I had no A-Levels (or equivalent). I knew my friend didn't have any either but she assured me it wasn't necessary. The ECDL course went straight out the window!
I went home and requested a prospectus.
I sat on the idea for a while. Six years of studying (to complete a degree part time) is a huge undertaking. Especially with my work life - would it be possible? Also, would I be eligible for financial assistance or the cost would be a major issue. But the over-riding feeling was "if SHE can get a degree I damn well want one too!" I was absolutely desperate for something to change.
Change Three: A Timely Opportunity
I had already begun the enrollment process when another change clicked into place: a new job! Still cleaning for the same company but 0800-1000, with a promotion too. So now I'm walking just 60% of what I was doing before and life is a lot easier. My feet are finally starting to heal up and things are looking pretty good right now. I'm working 6 days a week but I feel like I have so much more time...and plenty of time for study!
Mind you, I'm still struggling trying to get my bodyclock back on track but my course doesn't start until February so I have some time to get myself together. Enrollment is complete, I've bought my set texts, set up a study, signed up for some additional complementary classes...
If things can just stay as they are for a few years it'll be a big help. There's gonna be another change in early 2015 but thankfully I'll be more than halfway through my studies by then.
STEPDAD UPDATE
He had his surgery for bowel cancer, and two more follow up ops cos they punctured his spleen and eventually had to have it removed. He had a very rough time of it and lost a huge amount of weight but they think they got all the cancer. He's not having chemo and is just waiting for reversal surgery. So relieved he's okay!
Thursday, 1 September 2011
On Domestic Abuse
Note: If you don't know what I'm on about please Google (or search engine of choice) Fluid Hair Sarah Cameron and you'll soon find out.
Last night I came across a story from Canada that has me well and truly baffled.
To some extent I can see why using an image depicting domestic abuse is inappropriate for advertising a hair salon but I do not understand the total contempt for it, nor the ironically violent attitude of the public toward its creator.
The image depicts a well dressed woman, poised, with immaculate hair and a spectacular black eye, seated on a sofa gazing confidently at the viewer. Behind the sofa stands a man with a diamond necklace in his hands.
The image, given the tag line "look good in all you do", is supposed to represent the strength of women. The woman depicted is emphatically NOT a cowed, battered wife. She is not taking the husband's guilt-gift. She is not looking at him; she has her back to him and seems unafraid. The message is intended to come across as "I am strong, I have more control than HE thinks, HE is behind me...and it'll cost him a damn sight more than a necklace!"
And this is very much how I see it. Why should a battered wife only ever be portrayed as a downtrodden frump living in terror? That may be many women's experience but it not the only experience. Sadly, if this woman went to the police, despite the evidence of the shiner, she might well be disbelieved because she does not fit the "victim" stereotype.
Let's just consider how domestic abuse IS portrayed in the media for a moment...
The victim is almost always a woman, usually young, preferably attractive and innocent of any "provoking" behaviour such as adultery. The perpetrator is almost always a man, usually the husband, often depicted as virtually insane. Rarely are men shown as victims, or women as perpetrators. I don't think I have EVER seen a depiction of a parent being abused by their child or within any relationship other than a couple. Yet these and many other scenarios exist.
Every time domestic abuse is represented on a soap opera there is an outcry. The media is confusingly accused of sensationalising, trivialising and glamourising the issue. People complain because the writers complicate the issue with other issues such as adultery or alcoholism - but it IS a frequently complicated issue! I think people complain because they just don't want to see it... Incidentally, the most accurate soap storyline would be for domestic abuse to be revealed within a long established couple - pointing out that you rarely know it's going on and often has gone unnoticed by friends and family for years!
People are complaining about a domestic abuse image being used to advertise a hair salon. But where do such images belong? There is very little about domestic abuse in the public eye - it takes a controversial soap opera plotline or a real-life murder to get people talking. This sort of image disturbs people, upsets people, provokes debate when used in such a way. If this image was used for a helpline it would hardly be noticed...and therein lies the problem. Not least of all because funding for such helplines and their advertising is hard to come by.
Domestic abuse is too often hidden out of sight and not talked about. Those who claim to have suffered - for example Oksana Grigorieva, Mel Gibson's ex - are often met with disbelief and criticism at making the claim. Victims have few role models. We have celebrities who've battled drink, drugs, impoverished beginnings or child abuse to make something of their lives...but domestic abuse? No one springs to mind.
Attitudes are complex. A man who says, "I am an alcoholic, I need help," is praised for taking the first step. A man who says, "I hit my partner, I need help," is condemned!
We NEED to provoke people into talking, into addressing this issue.
Last night I came across a story from Canada that has me well and truly baffled.
To some extent I can see why using an image depicting domestic abuse is inappropriate for advertising a hair salon but I do not understand the total contempt for it, nor the ironically violent attitude of the public toward its creator.
The image depicts a well dressed woman, poised, with immaculate hair and a spectacular black eye, seated on a sofa gazing confidently at the viewer. Behind the sofa stands a man with a diamond necklace in his hands.
The image, given the tag line "look good in all you do", is supposed to represent the strength of women. The woman depicted is emphatically NOT a cowed, battered wife. She is not taking the husband's guilt-gift. She is not looking at him; she has her back to him and seems unafraid. The message is intended to come across as "I am strong, I have more control than HE thinks, HE is behind me...and it'll cost him a damn sight more than a necklace!"
And this is very much how I see it. Why should a battered wife only ever be portrayed as a downtrodden frump living in terror? That may be many women's experience but it not the only experience. Sadly, if this woman went to the police, despite the evidence of the shiner, she might well be disbelieved because she does not fit the "victim" stereotype.
Let's just consider how domestic abuse IS portrayed in the media for a moment...
The victim is almost always a woman, usually young, preferably attractive and innocent of any "provoking" behaviour such as adultery. The perpetrator is almost always a man, usually the husband, often depicted as virtually insane. Rarely are men shown as victims, or women as perpetrators. I don't think I have EVER seen a depiction of a parent being abused by their child or within any relationship other than a couple. Yet these and many other scenarios exist.
Every time domestic abuse is represented on a soap opera there is an outcry. The media is confusingly accused of sensationalising, trivialising and glamourising the issue. People complain because the writers complicate the issue with other issues such as adultery or alcoholism - but it IS a frequently complicated issue! I think people complain because they just don't want to see it... Incidentally, the most accurate soap storyline would be for domestic abuse to be revealed within a long established couple - pointing out that you rarely know it's going on and often has gone unnoticed by friends and family for years!
People are complaining about a domestic abuse image being used to advertise a hair salon. But where do such images belong? There is very little about domestic abuse in the public eye - it takes a controversial soap opera plotline or a real-life murder to get people talking. This sort of image disturbs people, upsets people, provokes debate when used in such a way. If this image was used for a helpline it would hardly be noticed...and therein lies the problem. Not least of all because funding for such helplines and their advertising is hard to come by.
Domestic abuse is too often hidden out of sight and not talked about. Those who claim to have suffered - for example Oksana Grigorieva, Mel Gibson's ex - are often met with disbelief and criticism at making the claim. Victims have few role models. We have celebrities who've battled drink, drugs, impoverished beginnings or child abuse to make something of their lives...but domestic abuse? No one springs to mind.
Attitudes are complex. A man who says, "I am an alcoholic, I need help," is praised for taking the first step. A man who says, "I hit my partner, I need help," is condemned!
We NEED to provoke people into talking, into addressing this issue.
Tuesday, 14 June 2011
Wisdom?
I guess that last post was cathartic. I expressed a load of pent-up emotions and got it out of my system and am consequently now feeling much better.
I don't suppose I'll ever fully get over my problems. I've had attempts at counselling in the past but it doesn't offer (me at least) any kind of resolution.
Part of the problem is you can't resolve issues that involve other people unless they're part of the process (which in my case they're not) and in this I am reminded of the serenity prayer:
I can't change my past and maybe one day I'll gain some serenity over it...but it's damn slow coming...at least I have the wisdom to see things as they are now - I don't hold all the anger I once did but, from time to time, it all gets a bit much.
I don't suppose I'll ever fully get over my problems. I've had attempts at counselling in the past but it doesn't offer (me at least) any kind of resolution.
Part of the problem is you can't resolve issues that involve other people unless they're part of the process (which in my case they're not) and in this I am reminded of the serenity prayer:
God grant me the serentity to accept the things I cannot change
The courage to change the things I can
And the wisdom to know the difference
I can't change my past and maybe one day I'll gain some serenity over it...but it's damn slow coming...at least I have the wisdom to see things as they are now - I don't hold all the anger I once did but, from time to time, it all gets a bit much.
Sour Apples
It has been quite a while since I last blogged and I apologise for coming back on a sour note.
Today I am feeling...resentful.
My sort of step dad is going into hospital today for surgery tomorrow due to suspected bowel cancer. He's a wonderful bloke and I'm very concerned for him - yet cautiously optomistic as, so far, all the tests have come back clear. My mum has been with him since the alarm bells sounded (they don't live together, hence the "sort of") and I don't resent the fact he's getting the care and support he needs. Not at all. I'm glad she's come through for him. Nuturing isn't in her nature.
Meanwhile, my dad has been expressing concern for his on/off girlfriend who has recently been diagnosed with terminal cancer of the mother. I don't like the sound of the mother in the slightest but I sympathise with what her daughter is going through, and will go through in the coming months.
So what is it that I resent? I resent that when I was going through my last cancer scare 4 years ago my mum didn't come and hold MY hand through all the appointments... Not, I suppose, that I really would've wanted her there but I don't think it ever occurred to her that I might need support.
I don't mean to sound like a stroppy adolescent but I've never felt loved or cared for by my parents. I'm an independent minded woman because I've had to be. I learned early in life that being sick or injured wouldn't make any difference. If my kid had been hit by a car at age 7 I'd have been beside myself with worry; I'd have cried and held my child for hours and I'm not exactly Ms Maternal myself. That's not how it was when I was hit by a car...
My ex left me just before my first cancer scare when I was 20. He was the only person I'd ever really believed cared about me but as I lay in hospital, frightened and alone after emergency surgery at 15 weeks pregnant with our second child, he told me on the phone he couldn't be bothered to visit me and bring me in a nightie. My parents were over a hundred miles away.
So, four years ago, I'd found another lump. My mum was taking me and my kids on holiday and I found the mass just hours before we were due to depart. I told my mum straight away and her reaction was to carry on regardless: a week's delay in going to a doctor wouldn't make any difference...after all, it had been okay last time! I agreed, partly cos I knew she'd be furious if I insisted on staying behind.
It WAS okay. Perhaps they were worried about me and didn't show it so as not to frighten me more than I already was... But ultimately I don't believe that.
I don't want to be needy and greedy and selfish but I wish so badly that I had someone I KNEW loved me, knew there was someone who'd be there at the drop of a hat to hold me and tell me everything would be all right. It frightens me that instead this searing loneliness may be all I'll ever know.
I want my step dad to be okay. I don't want to feel this way. I want to feel like a 33 year old independent woman and not like a lost and lonely child...
Today I am feeling...resentful.
My sort of step dad is going into hospital today for surgery tomorrow due to suspected bowel cancer. He's a wonderful bloke and I'm very concerned for him - yet cautiously optomistic as, so far, all the tests have come back clear. My mum has been with him since the alarm bells sounded (they don't live together, hence the "sort of") and I don't resent the fact he's getting the care and support he needs. Not at all. I'm glad she's come through for him. Nuturing isn't in her nature.
Meanwhile, my dad has been expressing concern for his on/off girlfriend who has recently been diagnosed with terminal cancer of the mother. I don't like the sound of the mother in the slightest but I sympathise with what her daughter is going through, and will go through in the coming months.
So what is it that I resent? I resent that when I was going through my last cancer scare 4 years ago my mum didn't come and hold MY hand through all the appointments... Not, I suppose, that I really would've wanted her there but I don't think it ever occurred to her that I might need support.
I don't mean to sound like a stroppy adolescent but I've never felt loved or cared for by my parents. I'm an independent minded woman because I've had to be. I learned early in life that being sick or injured wouldn't make any difference. If my kid had been hit by a car at age 7 I'd have been beside myself with worry; I'd have cried and held my child for hours and I'm not exactly Ms Maternal myself. That's not how it was when I was hit by a car...
My ex left me just before my first cancer scare when I was 20. He was the only person I'd ever really believed cared about me but as I lay in hospital, frightened and alone after emergency surgery at 15 weeks pregnant with our second child, he told me on the phone he couldn't be bothered to visit me and bring me in a nightie. My parents were over a hundred miles away.
So, four years ago, I'd found another lump. My mum was taking me and my kids on holiday and I found the mass just hours before we were due to depart. I told my mum straight away and her reaction was to carry on regardless: a week's delay in going to a doctor wouldn't make any difference...after all, it had been okay last time! I agreed, partly cos I knew she'd be furious if I insisted on staying behind.
It WAS okay. Perhaps they were worried about me and didn't show it so as not to frighten me more than I already was... But ultimately I don't believe that.
I don't want to be needy and greedy and selfish but I wish so badly that I had someone I KNEW loved me, knew there was someone who'd be there at the drop of a hat to hold me and tell me everything would be all right. It frightens me that instead this searing loneliness may be all I'll ever know.
I want my step dad to be okay. I don't want to feel this way. I want to feel like a 33 year old independent woman and not like a lost and lonely child...
Saturday, 19 February 2011
The Country Has Gone Mad! (UK)
I am blogging on behalf of my father, O. S. Feltham, who likes a good rant but dislikes technology.
Note: (my additions / alterations from his original) [my comments]
First, Parliament encourages people to spend beyond their means and (when) they can't pay it back Parliament blames the banks for giving loans.
Now we have a health organisation (NHS) suggesting that the tax payer gives money to those who abuse their bodies.
Those that smoke choose to smoke. It is not forced upon them. The individual makes that choice knowing the consequences of their action. If the tax payer paid them for 6 or 12 months (as has been suggested) what is going to stop them start smoking again when the free hand outs stop? If they want to have more money in their pockets and better health they have that choice and should not be paid to do so.
Those that are overweight are a different matter. Can the medical profession tell the difference between medical conditions and gluttony? If so, the medical conditions should be treated and gluttony should not. Gluttony is an individual's choice; it's a matter of will power. It is the people's choice, leave it to the people.
[I totally agree with this. My overeating is my fault; my responsibility. The fact I can't lose weight when dieting / increasing exercise may be medical. Two different issues. I think it's a disgrace that alcoholics like George Best get liver transplants. If you abuse your body and fail to change your ways why expect free treatment for the damage you have inflicted?]
The only people supporting the Government in these hard times are the savers in the country. [Supporting financially, not supportive]
For being prudent and saving, the returns are almost nil. This is because the biggest borrower (the government) cannot afford interest rates to rise. Therefore, in the long term, the interest rate must be almost zero.
Savers need to make a stand and remove from banks and Building Societies all their savings earning 1% or less - you can always put it in a bank safe deposit scheme.
What would be the Government's response? After all, the Government has made it cheaper for individuals and businesses to borrow money - cheaper mortgages - they have made it easier to go bankrupt so you can live the high life and the savers have to pay for it.
When is the Government going to do something for savers?
Parliament should stop whinging about bankers bonuses and put their own house in order. Stop all bonuses in local government and ministry departments. After all, they do not make a profit for the country.
Why should a person working in local (a) local authority be paid up to £80 per month and 43p per mile because they use their own car for work when in the private sector you would be very lucky to get (just) the 43p per mile?
If our armed forces get paid £15-£20,000 PA with no bonus why are people in the Ministry of Defense paid approx 4 times as much plus a bonus on top?
Pensions - the Government gives tax incentives to save in a pension scheme; therefore you give money to the pension scheme provider. The more one saves the greater the gift from the Government therefore benefiting the rich (who can afford higher contributions) rather than the poor - looking after your rich friend again!
As far as I understand (it), when an individual dies so does his pension - unless that person opted to have a named spouse so the pension would carry on for another 5 years. So all that tax payer's money that went into the pension (fund) is now added to the pension provider.
Would it not be better for a pension scheme to benefit those less well off, say those earning less than £35,000 PA (whilst) those earning above (would have to) save for themselves?
Who looks after the interests of the people who live in England?
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own Assemblies but we have no independant body.
[I totally agree; and why is it "racist" to consider myself English? The Welsh can be Welsh, the Cornish can even be Cornish but I can't be English? Even English as a school subject has been renamed "literacy."]
Why should people in England subsidise the other areas of the Union?
A better and fairer system of raising tax is required instead of Council Tax because like rates system it is unfair.
If you live in the South East you will pay more because someone says your house is valued more than (a virtually identical house) in another part of the country.
If you do not change the Council Tax the money raised should be spent by that authority and not given to another authority so they do not have to raise their Council Tax!
If you have two people per taxable house (they) pay the same as a family of four or more wage earners. In your "fair society" this cannot be allowed to continue.
[My parents would've been better off under Margaret Thatcher's Poll Tax. Why should people be penalised for having the good fortune to live in a higher value home? The house you live in does not always reflect your wealth. My parents were never high wage earners but bought their house as a fixer-upper, worked hard, scrimped and saved, the value went up and - hey presto! - they lost out to the tax man!]
All (political) parties look out for their rich friends. It's about time someone looked after the not so well off.
Why should a person who is rich enough (get away with not paying) his due tax because he can employ someone to form a scheme not to pay tax?
The last time I brought this up with my MP I was told that the country needs entrepreneurs to make money for the country. Entrepreneurs are paid well enough in salaries, bonuses, shares and any scheme they think of to make more money. They should all pay tax on all earnings made from other people in this country.
If you took tax from all the rich people who avoid it at the moment perhaps you could pay off the defecit in (as little as) one year and not have to cut benefits to the poor.
Government departments and local authorities should still be cut to save the tax payer (from) paying more and more.
There. I hope you enjoyed my dad's rant.
Let me leave you with this thought: We are taught that everyone is equal and should be treated accordingly and yet by doing so the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Those in the middle miss out even more. They miss out on the incentives offered to the rich and the benefits given to the poor.
There is a reason why Robin Hood is such an enduring folk hero. His tale is one of redressing the balance; of taking from those who can afford it and giving to those who can least afford to give.
Note: (my additions / alterations from his original) [my comments]
First, Parliament encourages people to spend beyond their means and (when) they can't pay it back Parliament blames the banks for giving loans.
Now we have a health organisation (NHS) suggesting that the tax payer gives money to those who abuse their bodies.
Those that smoke choose to smoke. It is not forced upon them. The individual makes that choice knowing the consequences of their action. If the tax payer paid them for 6 or 12 months (as has been suggested) what is going to stop them start smoking again when the free hand outs stop? If they want to have more money in their pockets and better health they have that choice and should not be paid to do so.
Those that are overweight are a different matter. Can the medical profession tell the difference between medical conditions and gluttony? If so, the medical conditions should be treated and gluttony should not. Gluttony is an individual's choice; it's a matter of will power. It is the people's choice, leave it to the people.
[I totally agree with this. My overeating is my fault; my responsibility. The fact I can't lose weight when dieting / increasing exercise may be medical. Two different issues. I think it's a disgrace that alcoholics like George Best get liver transplants. If you abuse your body and fail to change your ways why expect free treatment for the damage you have inflicted?]
The only people supporting the Government in these hard times are the savers in the country. [Supporting financially, not supportive]
For being prudent and saving, the returns are almost nil. This is because the biggest borrower (the government) cannot afford interest rates to rise. Therefore, in the long term, the interest rate must be almost zero.
Savers need to make a stand and remove from banks and Building Societies all their savings earning 1% or less - you can always put it in a bank safe deposit scheme.
What would be the Government's response? After all, the Government has made it cheaper for individuals and businesses to borrow money - cheaper mortgages - they have made it easier to go bankrupt so you can live the high life and the savers have to pay for it.
When is the Government going to do something for savers?
Parliament should stop whinging about bankers bonuses and put their own house in order. Stop all bonuses in local government and ministry departments. After all, they do not make a profit for the country.
Why should a person working in local (a) local authority be paid up to £80 per month and 43p per mile because they use their own car for work when in the private sector you would be very lucky to get (just) the 43p per mile?
If our armed forces get paid £15-£20,000 PA with no bonus why are people in the Ministry of Defense paid approx 4 times as much plus a bonus on top?
Pensions - the Government gives tax incentives to save in a pension scheme; therefore you give money to the pension scheme provider. The more one saves the greater the gift from the Government therefore benefiting the rich (who can afford higher contributions) rather than the poor - looking after your rich friend again!
As far as I understand (it), when an individual dies so does his pension - unless that person opted to have a named spouse so the pension would carry on for another 5 years. So all that tax payer's money that went into the pension (fund) is now added to the pension provider.
Would it not be better for a pension scheme to benefit those less well off, say those earning less than £35,000 PA (whilst) those earning above (would have to) save for themselves?
Who looks after the interests of the people who live in England?
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own Assemblies but we have no independant body.
[I totally agree; and why is it "racist" to consider myself English? The Welsh can be Welsh, the Cornish can even be Cornish but I can't be English? Even English as a school subject has been renamed "literacy."]
Why should people in England subsidise the other areas of the Union?
- Prescription Charges
- Hospital Parking
- Tuition Fees
A better and fairer system of raising tax is required instead of Council Tax because like rates system it is unfair.
If you live in the South East you will pay more because someone says your house is valued more than (a virtually identical house) in another part of the country.
If you do not change the Council Tax the money raised should be spent by that authority and not given to another authority so they do not have to raise their Council Tax!
If you have two people per taxable house (they) pay the same as a family of four or more wage earners. In your "fair society" this cannot be allowed to continue.
[My parents would've been better off under Margaret Thatcher's Poll Tax. Why should people be penalised for having the good fortune to live in a higher value home? The house you live in does not always reflect your wealth. My parents were never high wage earners but bought their house as a fixer-upper, worked hard, scrimped and saved, the value went up and - hey presto! - they lost out to the tax man!]
All (political) parties look out for their rich friends. It's about time someone looked after the not so well off.
Why should a person who is rich enough (get away with not paying) his due tax because he can employ someone to form a scheme not to pay tax?
The last time I brought this up with my MP I was told that the country needs entrepreneurs to make money for the country. Entrepreneurs are paid well enough in salaries, bonuses, shares and any scheme they think of to make more money. They should all pay tax on all earnings made from other people in this country.
If you took tax from all the rich people who avoid it at the moment perhaps you could pay off the defecit in (as little as) one year and not have to cut benefits to the poor.
Government departments and local authorities should still be cut to save the tax payer (from) paying more and more.
There. I hope you enjoyed my dad's rant.
Let me leave you with this thought: We are taught that everyone is equal and should be treated accordingly and yet by doing so the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Those in the middle miss out even more. They miss out on the incentives offered to the rich and the benefits given to the poor.
There is a reason why Robin Hood is such an enduring folk hero. His tale is one of redressing the balance; of taking from those who can afford it and giving to those who can least afford to give.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)