Comment of The Day

Today’s comes from an understandably anomymous correspondent via the Independent’s letters section and is aimed at all those who’d punish today’s parents for the actions of their children:

The plight of parents when teenagers get out of control

Sir: Much has been made of poor parenting (letters, 18 August). No doubt there are parents who do not care, but it is a complicated situation. You can take a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. My daughters were brought up to respect us and the law, work hard and invest in their own futures.

At the age of 12, both became foul-mouthed, aggressive strangers, who swore at us, refused to divulge their whereabouts or come home to agreed deadlines. Our 13-year-old often stayed out all night. We had no idea where she was or who she was with, and she refused to tell us anything. There is no lawful tool for parents to deal with this; good behaviour depends on mutual trust and respect. When this disappears, parents are backed into a corner where they have used all sanctions as punishment, and the teenager has no incentive to behave well.

The suggestion that such children be taken into care is not the answer. Our younger daughter has been in care for most of the past 12 months, but far from helping her, she lost the security of a loving home, gained a criminal record, was seriously sexually assaulted and, despite much work from the staff in her present children’s home, has absconded 22 times in three months. So parental influence, or lack of it, cannot be the whole story.

I was forced to attend patenting classes (because of a crime my daughter committed in care). These were an abusive, humiliating experience which did nothing to help our situation and much to exacerbate it. Any remaining tatters of confidence I had as a parent were destroyed.

Our older daughter is now 17, stable, personable, working hard towards a university place, taking part-time jobs and living happily with us. She cringes at her earlier behaviour (and is highly critical of her sister). In fact, her past mistakes spur her on to make a success of her life and make us proud of her.

The past couple of years have put an intolerable strain on our health, our marriage, our careers and our lives. If we could have avoided or shortened our nightmare we would obviously have done so.

Name and address supplied

I know that’s a true story because I’ve been there – as have thousands of other parents whom the Daily Mail would make homeless, bang up or fine, whether they’re lone or partnered, rich, poor or middling, black or white; though it’s undeniable that to be poor and/or a visible monrity is to have more chance of it happening to your family.

We appear to have come to a point in our developed and developing cultures where the governments that we’ve elected are entirely focused on compelling every single member of society to be a financially productive unit, regardless of all else. This means that a generation is bringing itself up alone and indeed a generation that has already brought itself up alone is now producing another to do the same.

Consistent parenting and boundary setting for adolescents has become a luxury: when one parent is trying to do two jobs, or two parents are working back-to-back shifts for minimum wage, who has time to do much else than a pile of laundry, a quick vacuum and a scan of homework schedules? Short of electronic tagging (and even that’s evadable) what’s a parent to do whan a child is determined to go entirely off the rails?

Unfortunately ‘going off the rails’ nowadays doesn’t just mean making a couple of stupid mistakes: when even the smallest of infractions leads to criminal sanctions, a criminal record and your DNA added to the database. If you’re already an outlaw why not be hung for a sheep as well as a lamb?

All that our offspring see and hear teaches that they are living on a dying planet anyway, so what the fuck. It teaches that greed is good, that everyone’s a hypocrite and no-one, least of all politicians, can be trusted, especially not about drugs, money or sex, since so many are using themselves or creaming off a few quid or getting some on the side, whilst condemning those very activities in the young.

If our children learn nothing else from globalisation and 24 hr media access it’s that they are tiny and a it’s a big cruel world that they’re powerless to do anything about. They also learn that their parents, instead of being the rocks of authority and strength they should be, are shown every day to be as utterly powerless as anyone else. Imagine what that does to fragile adolescent confidence and a fatalistic nihilism seems a totally understandable response.

When our children can see with their own eyes that even supposedly fair and democratic governments can kill, torture, steal and lie with impunity and nothing will happen, or that the police can shoot a man in the head seven times for no good reason then walk away and nothing will happen, it tells them that these days you can just about do anything and nothing will happen. But since to be young is to be prejudged criminal anyay, like the ad says, why not just do it?

What can your Mum and Dad do, lock you up?

The magnet for rebelling adolescents is of course their peer group and as in the wider world local hierarchies are built on money and force. It’s just ‘doing business’, other children have little choice but to go along and the police are largely an irrelevance. No-one grasses, not if they want to have a life. Pull your hood up, keep your head down, safe.

How has this come about? After Thatcher’s welfare reforms of the mid-eighties to mid-nineties, state support for unemployed parents and lone parents was sharply reduced. In a time of rising unemployment, benefit cuts and high taxes the underground economy boomed – with no jobs to be had the only way of making a little school uniform or Christmas money was and still is selling goods cheap, no questions asked, or looking after or selling a bit of dope – just ‘doing a bit of business’. But of course like any developing economy ‘a bit of business’ has grown and diversified and become a criminal way of life that has turned some areas of our towns and cities into virtual tribal fiefdoms.

The thug life is now a generational klifestyle and is pimped as the cool lifestyle of choice to the young by boomer ad execs and trendmakers who should know better.

The surroundings may be suburban and prosaic or urban and hellish but in their head everybody’s a Soprano or 50cent, even if only pimp-rolling their merry way along the street in say, Budleigh Salterton. To them even a boardedup post offifce is turf to be defended and marked: stomping on the head of a complaining neighbour – perfect! Instant, underground fame. A drive-by? Even better.

Disaffected adolescents used to dream of when they were King of Acacia Avenue – now, with the culture of impunity and the easy availability of guns. they actually can be. This makes us scared of them and they know that. That gives them power over us that adolescents should not have. But then again, with 2, even 3 greedy generations ahead of them determined to keep a tight grip on power and the world’s wealth while it still lasts, how else are they ever to get any power except by force?

It seems as though our children are taken from us by the world at earlier and earlier ages, to be returned to us refashioned, in an image we dont recognise. This I suppose has been the refrain of every parent ever and it may be it’s something that has to happen in order for our children to lean the skills to cope in the future world.

What’s different now is that it’s uncertain whether there will be a world to have a future in and thus iit may well be that callousness, greed and brutality are the skills they’lll need to learn to survive.

What to do? I don’t know what the answer is, I wish to God I did; I’m still working on it myself.

Protect? No, Survive.

This past week the Girl Guides published the results of a survey of their members that asked what new skills they wanted to learn.

Unsurprisingly the media at home and internationally focused on one item alone – that guides chose ‘practice safe sex’ as an additional skill.

Here’s a couple of typical responses at Free Republic (sorry, won’t dignify them with a linlk)

“This is such a repugnant move on the part of the Girl Guides that it should make decent people want to puke.

In their monthly magazine mailed out to the membership I wouldn’t be surprised if it featured advertisements for sex toys. No rucksack should be without one!”

“I nearly did puke when I heard about this. I actually threw up in my mouth.”

I can guess the reason the Freepers feel nauseous: it’s the conflicted guilt they feel for envisioning young trainee sluts in hot uniforms doing unspeakable things the moment they read ‘girl guides’ and ‘sex’.

How very revealing indeed that the first commenter’s immediate mental connection with girl guides was ‘sex toys’. But then that’s the right wing all over -they say they’re all about protecting girls and women but really it’s about keeping them ignorant and thus easier to mould to mens’ sexual and domestic desires.

I’d also point out that it’s older guides, aged 16-25, who chose the subject – above the age of consent, here and in the US (well above in the case of Idaho, where it’s 14) . But reality’s no barrier to the wingnuts’ fevered imaginations.

Anyway, the list of wanted skills is actually quite interesting and is broken up by age group:

SKILLS WISH-LIST – AGE SEVEN TO 10

Surf the web
Name 10 European countries
Ride a bike
Care for a pet

Which are actually rather sweet. Don’t forget these are additional to the skill badges the guides already do but if anything need be added, I’d say road safety. Or what to do in a flood.

AGE 10 TO 15

Prepare a healthy meal
Change a light-bulb
Say hello in foreign languages
Stand up to boys

I’d add basic bike mechanics for that bike they learned to ride earlier, or how to build your own pc. Girls should learn how things work and how to fix them; competence gives confidence, and might actually help a bit with ‘how to stand up to boys’.

It might also, in the light of recent severe weather events be useful to expand the survival badge to include what to include in an emergency pack, how to cope without power in 6 feet of water, how to make sandbags, purify drinking water and recognise the syptoms of cholera and typhoid…

AGE 16 TO 25

Practise safe sex
Write a CV
Hold on to a job
Plan a holiday

What struck me about that last list is the sharp difference in aspiration between it and the 10-15 list: the latter are all outward looking practical skills, the former totally self-focused – to me it reads like the wish-list of someone working in a dead-end call-center job and going out at the weekends. You can almost see the horizons narrowing.

What should be added to that list is self-defence: what to do if someone pulls a knife, or someone gets shot or if one of your friends is tasered by overzealous cops on an injuncted National Trust or Friends of the Earth protest – also a badge for how to clean up contaminated river sludge from household appliances and disinfect carpets. Or how get a fire going from sodden charcoal and make a cup of tea.

The guides unsurprisingly focus on girls but lest I be accused of misandry I think that everyone needs to learn how to survive in a crisis and every single skillset mentioned here applies equally well to boys.

Especially ‘how to stand up to boys’.

But last weeks floods and the continuibg recovery issues show very clearly that it’s not just modern society today’s young women need to survive in but an an increasingly unstable physical world too.

I know I sound like a stereotypical stuffy great aunt but I’m dismayed at the lack of practical physical survival skills that young people today are taught: parents are just too busy surviving financially or weren’t taught themselves, Ray Mears’ enduring popularity notwithstanding. Sometimes it seems as though teaching children these practical skills in schools is seen as away of empowering children to defy authority. Better to keep the youth pliant and quiet, it’s thought, but if childrens’ urges to take risks leads them has no oulet they’ll confront danger in other ways many of them illegal and/or lethal.

We have a massive resourrce of survival knowledge to draw on from what our grandparents learned from their harsh wartime experiences in times of terrible danger, privation and crisis That knowledge is in danger of being lost as the last wartime generation gradually dies off, but there has to be a way to draw on it to the benefit of today’s youth: they too are threatened, as their grandparents were, by world instability, creeping fascism and men with guns – so they should have quite a lot in common.

Snark aside, whatever you feel about the jingoist and imperialistic origins and the structure and ethos of the scouts and guiding movements and their largely ( at least in the UK) middle-class membership and aspirations, nevertheless it has to be a good thing to teach the young how to survive in a modern society, for as long as that modern society lasts.

Comment of The DayWeek

Well, it’s comment of the week, really, because it feeds into a topic that’s greatly in the news this week, lone parents and benefit cuts. It’s been announced that in the UK women with children as young as 7 will be forced into low-paid jobs or face benefit cuts, emphasis on the women (I don’t see any mention of men). The blame culture strikes again, setting ‘good’ women against ‘bad’.

So this, from kactus, who’s been guest-blogging at Feministe, was sytartlingly apropios:

kactus Says:
July 16th, 2007 at 4:45 pm

I was going to ask the same question as anonplease. You’re literate, well-spoken-I can only assume it’s bias against your colour and disability.

Actually, I’m white, JPlum. I do have a mixed-race daughter, whose picture I plaster all over my blog, and I live in a mostly-black community, but no, actually being white has helped me navigate the welfare system much more than my sisters in poverty who are struggling against the racism in the system.

Look, being well-spoken and educated is no fail-safe protection against poverty. Neither is being white. Although those things help, they are not a guarantee of a middle-class life. I was raised working class, which used to mean something. Now it means almost nothing, except that you still have illusions about what used to be called upward mobility.

I have a quote on my blog from Johnnie Tillmon, a great early welfare rights activist. She says that welfare is like a traffic accident: it can happen to anybody. But especially it happens to women, which is why welfare is a women’s issue.

Women go from middle class comfort to unpredictable poverty all the time, just from something so simple as losing their partners, either to death or divorce or other calamity. As long as the wage gap between women and men is so huge this will continue to be an issue. Women raise children alone all the time, without the benefit of child support. Women often end up working low-wage, dead-end jobs. Women lose jobs because of their children.

Poverty is absolutely a women’s issue. That is why it is a feminist issue, and a human rights issue. And in the end it really doesn’t matter why somebody is poor, or what brought them there. What matters is that it could happen to every single one of us. One slip and bam–we’re in that traffic accident called welfare.

I’m literate and well-spoken too and I’ve been on welfare too: intelligence is no predictor of misfortune and being well-spoken does not negate the effects of institutional misogynism – in fact if you are well-spoken and literate you are considered to be all the more culpable for your own poverty by the ‘caring’ agencies.

This overt equation of poverty with moral failure in the US is becoming more obvious in the UK too as Labour’s neoliberal economic policies create an ever-widening poverty gap by giving tax breaks to the richest and making life ever harder for the poorest.

It made me livid yesterday to listen to the posh voices of the bourgeois ‘left-wing’ think tank wonks on Radio 4 , talking about Labour’s swingeing, unfair cuts to lone parent benefits as taking a ‘carrot and stick’ approach to ‘recalcitrant’ mothers, as though women raising small children alone were lazy, shiftless animals.

Why is it that motherhood is a worthy full-time job for them, the smug middle-class Yummy Mummy marrieds, with their 4X4 baby buggies, Tumble Tots and their insatiable Daily Mail-fed terror of the icky urban poor – but not for mothers bringing up children alone?

Aren’t less well-off children entitled to the same quality of parenting as those born to the luckily well-off? Why does addition of a man to the equation make their children more worthy of a decent upbringing?

Is the government saying that married mothers are morally more worthy than unmarried? It certainly sounds like it. You’d think the Labour sisterhood’d be up in arms, wouldn’t you?

Hello….? Harriet Harman? Anyone?

Nope, didn’t think so. Labour sisterhood never was for shit, except as it furthered certain women’s political careers, as I and many other ex-Labour members can testify. That those women would now sit back, mum, while the Treasury thumps the most overtaxed, most vulnerable families in society, the people who voted for them to be where they are because they thought Labour and Labour wonen would be a voice for women and children…

I was a good lone parent. I did everything I was supposed to, even though I was sick – I went back tio University to got a degree, I went on training courses, I took low-paid jobs to get on the ladder. I’m not unique in this, it’s what a lot of women do, because we have to and we don’t like being un-self-supporting.

When I first graduated I worked 3 years for 60-70 hour weeks for nothing getting an anti-poverty campaigning and advice agency off the ground and funded, a] because I was committed to it, having seen myself what an impenetrable maze bureaucracy can be for the uninitiated b] because legal aid is hard to get and c] because I knew that doing it myself was the only way I’d ever get a legal job . I know because I tried but no-one wants someone with a patchy medical history and I can understand why. No problems with jobs as a part-time temp, yes, but that doesn’t feed children or pay the rent…

Then a man was given the paid post I raised the money for, over my head, because of local political infighting, aka the sexual appetites of prominent Labour councillor’s partner. I walked out and the organisation went tits up later when a deal was done by the very same councilllors for the land it stood on.

It knocked me right back on my heels, three year’s hard work down the tubes, but I did manage to get an antipoverty strategy put into local council policy, albeit briefly, which is something, I suppose – every decision made by the council had to be considered in the light it would have on those on low incomes. But not for long, cheers, New Labour. Once back in power they always forget who put them there. Lone mothers. Poor people, people like me ho’ve seen the injustice poverty causes.

Blaming lone mothers for their own poverty and accusing them of being leeches on society iis very useful to the government because it enables the real plight of the poor to be disregarded. But poverty can hit very quicly and few women are immune.

Say you have a husband, a house, a mortgage and two children under 5: you’ve left your job to go part-time, or you’ve had to leave to look after the children. One day your husband just ups and leaves you for someone else, shutting down all the bank accounts, taking the car and barring access to money. As happened to my sister one Christmas Eve.

How do you feed your kids while coping with the aftermath? But milk, or nappies? How do you pay the childminder to go to your part-time job? What if you have to leave your job, what then?

These are the current UK benefit rates for a lone parent on means-tested benefits:

Lone parent
under 18 35.65/46.85
18 or over 59.15

Dependent children 47.45

Family premium 16.43

Max total 170 pounds, plus housing and council benefit if in rented accommodation (nothing at all if in your own home, you’ll have to find the mortgage payment out of the 170) say, around another 100 pounds a week if not living in London, less elsewhere.

That gives a maximum weekly income of around 270 pounds a week to find everything out of – food, electric, gas, rent, travel costs, school lunches, school uniforms, books… It certainly looks generous on the face of it, but not when you consider what has to come out of it and that the national average weekly household income is 570 pounds. Lone parents must do all the parenting that two parents do on around half the income.

Lone parents are disproportionately women and for some reason people think women can cope with poverty, that we don’t need a decent income, that we’ll manage, because that’s what we do – and that our lot in life is to just shut up and take it, wait until someone deigns to hand us some charity and then we must be duly grateful and publicly so.

What is conveniently forgotten is that these meagre benefit entitlements have been paid for several times over by ours and our parents’ and grandparents’ National Insurance contributions and will be by the future contributions of our children, should they be able to get a job and not be trapped in poverty.

This attitude illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of the welfare state: the Brown government, as the Tories did before it, would like the public to think that social security is charity, and that those seeking alms from the charity can somehow be sorted into the ‘deserving’ and undeserving’. You can see how well this has worked by reading the comments to this Scotsman article onthe benefit cuts, of which this is a representative example:

I am in complete harmony with the principle that individuals should be accountable for their actions, and see no reason why I should help someone to raise a child if they are not prepared to work, even if it’s part time. The welfare system in this country was never set up to fund lifestyles, and sadly that’s basically what it does now, fund lazy eegits, criminals and slappers, and other wasters.

Delinquent fathers is another topic of irritation, and we should be relentless in finding them and forcing them to contribute to the childs up bringing expenses.
Rant over!

:

State benefits are not charity, they are an arrangement between the citizen and the state to provide support out of work in return for contributions from income when in work. Why? So that no more generations of children would be raised in poverty. That was why we voted Labour.

The British media would have the public believe that lone parents get more benefit than couples: not so –

Couple

both under 18 35.65/46.85/70.70
one under 18 46.85/59.15/92.80
both aged 18+ 92.80

Even though lone mothers have to do the work of two parents on less money iand less time and the cost of running a household is the same for a lone parent as it is for a couple.

Instead of enabling lone parents (and isn’t it odd how the public discourse has slipped back from ‘lone parents’ to ‘single mothers’? – talk about feminising the situation for blame purposes) to raise their children in a way which does not exclude them from participating in society – after all children do not choose the families they are born into, why should they suffer? – the less morally worthy single mothers must be made to work and work hard for their charitable handout, even if it means spending time that should be spent raising children properly in filling out constant, pointless forms and doing empty busywork preparing for jobs they won’t get anyway because there are a thousand younger, more qualified new graduates or recent economic migrants with no children or other baggage right in line before them.

The jobs that are available to lone parents don’t pay enough to cover the loss of housing benefit or are in low-paid shift work, or on-demand hours, requiring the most minutely arranged time-management, transport and hugely expensive and precarious childcare arrangements for very little reward after direct and indirect taxation are taken into account.

And where’s all the extra childcare to come from? The government is planning that schools should become child-care centres and children should attend from 7 am till 6pm, with drastically reduced vacation time. I wonder who’ll be forced to apply for the childcare jiobs at these childcare centrres? Lone parents forced out to work…

We’re building a nicely circular low-paid system of poor women looking after other women’s children while having to put their own into… paid childcare. But hey, at least they’re not scrounging.

With all this in mind it doesn’t help at all that that women who do currently, temporarily, have money and security look down on lone parents as moral failures. No – we were sick, or our partner turned out to be an asshole, or the condom broke or the pill didn’t work or we got made redundant. Some of which has happened to me at some point as it can happen to any parent. That’s the whole point of the benefit system: there but for the grace of whatever deity or randomness go you.

And don’t talk to me about relative poverty. If you can’t pay your bills you can’t pay your bills whether in pounds, dinar or Zimbabwean hyper-currency.

A family is a family, one parent or two and deserves state support. families are what makes the state – but as Gordon Brown so constantly reiterates, it’s only ‘hard-working’ families. Well, lone parents are hard-working too: they’re working hard at raising the next genration of taxpayers that will help fund the currently comfortable’s pensions.

It’s they who are the bedrock of a very unequal society, doing all the shit unpaid jobs no-one else will, for bugger all reward except the blame of the tabloids for causing all the ills of society.

But blame is useful it enables the currently comfortable to ignore real poverty, to feel smug, to have someone to despise: not only that, it sets women against one another and is yet another way of dividing and ruling.

Is It Just Me, Or Are The Mitt Romney Clan Mutants?

The teeth, they’re coming!

Is it just me that finds the multiplicity of identikit Romneys decidedly disconcerting?

It’s not just the Mitt lies and the hypocrisy and the weird religion and the teeth and and the torture advocacy, it’s that and the fact that should he be elected President, he’ll have his own ready-made, full-on Mormon, shiny-toothed and haired Praetorian guard – like Uday and Usay Hussein, but more Osmondesque.

What started me down that scary train of thought was this article from Reuters:

Polygamist community faces rare genetic disorder
Thu Jun 14, 2007 11:00AM EDT
By Jason Szep

COLORADO CITY, Arizona (Reuters) – In a dusty neighborhood under sheer sandstone cliffs studded with juniper on the Arizona-Utah border, a rare genetic disorder is spreading through polygamous families on a wave of inbreeding.

The twin border communities of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Arizona, have the world’s highest known prevalence of fumarase deficiency, an enzyme irregularity that causes severe mental retardation brought on by cousin marriage, doctors say.

“Arizona has about half the world’s population of known fumarase deficiency patients,” said Dr. Theodore Tarby, a pediatric neurologist who has treated many of the children at Arizona clinics under contracts with the state.

“It exists in a certain percentage of the broader population but once you get a tendency to inbreed you’re inbreeding people who have the gene there, so you markedly increase the risk of developing the condition,” he said.

The community of about 10,000 people, who shun outsiders and are taught to avoid newspapers, television and the Internet, is home to the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), a sect that broke from the mainstream Mormon church 72 years ago over polygamy.

The group, who wear conservative 19th-century clothing, is led by Warren Jeffs, who was arrested in August and charged as an accomplice to rape for using his authority to order a 14-year-old girl against her wishes to marry and have sex with her 19-year-old cousin.

Doctors in the area declined requests for interviews and families refuse to talk to reporters. But former FLDS members, independent doctors and authorities say the disorder appears to have struck at least 20 children in the past 15 years.

“The disease itself is very rare in the rest of the world,” said Dr. Vinodh Narayanan of Arizona’s St. Joseph’s Hospital & Medical Center and Barrow Neurological Institute. Doctors worldwide had only studied about 10 cases just a decade ago.

“Once you get people within in the same community marrying, then the chances grow of having two people carrying the exact same mutation.”

More…

Yes, and this is the unfortunate result.


Image by Salamander Society