Tagged by soullessflyer - a meme on relaxation.

[annwfyn]

I think it seems unlikely that I'm going to make it in to Oxford today, which means that any day now the History Library ninja hit squad will arrive on my doorstep to reclaim 'A History of Lycanthropy' and 'The Art of the Byzantine Empire'. I'm beginning to feel deeply guilty about those books. They are now two weeks overdue, and I just seem to have no ability to return the bloody things.

On the other hand, despite my staying in London today and trying to load pierot on to a plague cart regularly (he really is ill - shivers and some muscle convulsions, not to mention horrible icky stomach pains) I have had a fairly productive day. I now know much more about eytmology, I understand the significance of goats in Celtic mythology, and I understand why 'welsh' actually means 'slave' if you go back to the original meaning.

It's good to know such things.

I'm also having an internal argument with myself on social policy. This happens sometimes. I saw this article, originally in The Sun and then elsewhere and it's been bothering me, mostly because it has left me less able to scorn the Vile Littlejohn than I would like. He wrote a standard vile column talking about these three teenage mothers, who are living on benefits with their mum, after having gotten pregnant at 16, 14 and 12 respectively. He ranted about bringing back the workhouse etc, and of course he is fairly grotty, yet...

There is something wrong about this situation! A mother has allowed all three of her daughters to become pregnant while horrifically young. The youngest daughter was twelve when she got pregnant. Twelve years old. That shouldn't be happening. The oldest had already been pregnant three times before actually giving birth this time, when she was only sixteen. And now these children are being left in a situation where their mother takes no responsibility for having allowed this to happen, and I tend to agree with Mr Littlejohn that there is a fairly high chance that these girls are going to get pregnant again.

So, what should have been done?

On one hand I do think that the Good Old Days, in which girls like this would have been pressured quite heavily towards adoption, were fairly cruel. Pressuring unmarried mothers into giving up their children is a horrible thing to do, and yet did it mean that babies born into bad situations were given more of a chance? Would it be a bad thing if girls in situations like this were at least made more aware of options such as adoption? And to be honest, I can also see an argument for putting the youngest daughter at least into some kind of care. If she was sexually active at the age of 12, with her mother's acceptance, isn't that close to criminally negligent parenting?

Or am I being a horrible middle class snob? Am I lacking compassion? I don't know. I just know that the thought of twelve year old children having children themselves scares me, and I'm not convinced that better sex education in schools, as suggested by the mother in this case, is the answer. Or is it? So what should be done?

And finally...from soullessflyer

List 10 things you do to RELAX!
Not because you have to, but because you WANT to! Things you enjoy, even when no one around you wants to go out and play. What lowers your stress/blood pressure/anxiety level? Make a list, post it to your journal... and then tag 5 friends and ask them to post it to theirs

• Role playing in all forms


• Walking. Walking anywhere, but preferably in the outdoors near somewhere green and fresh.


• Writing bad fiction of assorted forms. At the moment I'm writing up complicated political systems for imaginary worlds, which kinda comes into my fiction category.


• The cinema. There is nothing in the world which isn't made to seem better with the application of flickering lights, hot dogs and popcorn.


• Cooking. I like cooking. I like making nice meals, and topping it all off with a good dessert.


• Eating. Preferably something interesting that I can't cook myself, which is why I like sushi places, preferably in company.


• Reading. Although I don't do this nearly often enough, mostly because it's something I have to do so much of for my masters.


• Watching DVDs - preferably of all the TV series I never get enough time to watch. At the moment it is the West Wing, but I tend to default to CSI, or Poirot or other such shows.


• Cocktails. The only kind of alcohol I truly truly love. Preferably big and poncy cocktails with umbrellas in them


• Going somewhere new, whether it be by train or plane or just driving around. I like going to places.

I won't tag anyone, coz I tend to think that people should answer memes if they want to, but feel free to add this to your LJ if you want.

Comments

[sea-of-flame.livejournal.com]

and I understand why 'welsh' actually means 'slave' if you go back to the original meaning.

That demands further explanation!

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

It's less exciting if I explain it. :p

Basically, the word 'welsh' is an English language term, derriving from the Old English, 'wahl' or 'wealh'. In Old English it originally referred to those people of Brythonic/British/Celtic descent who continued to live under English rule. These people were treated as being lesser than a good Anglo-Saxon. They weren't buried with weapons, which were status symbols (probably) for the pagan Anglo-Saxons, and if you killed them then their wergild was considerably lower than a free Saxon. It's thought that this separate legal status was a pretty major encouragement for Britons living under Anglo-Saxon rule to assimilate pretty quickly and start speaking Old English, wearing the right wrist clasps and cremating their dead instead of putting them in cist burials.

Anyway, as time went by the word increasingly developed two meanings. One was as a point of reference for the Britons lurking in the west of the island - the welsh - and the other was just a name for a sub class of person who was worth less in the eyes of the law. Wealh, wahl or 'slave'.

And so, that is why linguistically, the word 'welsh' is the same as the traditional Old English for 'slave' or 'thrall'. Basically, the early English KNEW that the welsh were just...different.

Modern day DNA testing also confirms this. People in North Wales have different DNA from the rest of the country. Scots, English people, even those dirty south Welsh, all have a nice dose of DNA which looks awful similar to DNA from Germany/Scandanavia. All except the north Welsh who are...different.

They may have some sheep related DNA in them, but no studies have been done of that yet. The scientists fear north Wales. Apparently the locals 'don't like strangers' up there, and after a couple of nasty incidents...:p

You can tell I'm getting towards the end of a day being academic, can't you?

Teenage mothers

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

I don't think you sound horribly right wing at all. The problem with keeping our respective tax paying noses out of it is that our noses well, they pay taxes to keep these young ladies. That allows a certain moral judgement. Statistically, the lower income your home, the more likely you are to have the babies. That creates this sort of bottom heavy society that dominates the UK. When I was single and sexually active, I did everything I could (most of the time) to make sure I stayed a non-parent type. I thought about having a child and what it would do to my life. I wouldn't be able to get an education as quickly, or take on a permanent job as easily.

I had all sorts of life goals that didn't intermix with the idea of having a child. That forced me into being proactive. Imagine these girls, it can't be a lack of sex education. They're being told from a very, very young age where babies come from and how to prevent it. They just don't have the incentive (or so they think) to prevent it from happening. What they see is a mother on benefits, not a mother with goals or a future and think that's there way to becoming adults. Models have a lot to do with things like that. I suspect that if I was born to a mother who was living off the state and did not emphasize the importance of education that I'd probably be in the same boat.

I don't think there's anything wrong with encouraging them to work either. Contributing to the economy can only benefit their self esteem and instill good work ethics in their children.

Re: Teenage mothers

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

I think you're right in that the problem doesn't lie in sex education or the lack thereof. I think it does lie in a lack of alternative options or goals for young women from that kind of background. I guess if you really don't have a lot of opportunities other than 'leave school at 16, get job in factory', with motherhood as your ultimate goal then there won't be much incentive to try and avoid motherhood. Babies are one way of giving one's life validity, and if girls in some places aren't being offered alternative forms of validation...

*shakes head*

I don't know. I do know that I believe in the welfare state. I believe that the vulnerable in society should be treated well and protected. I believe that it is not our place to make judgments and say who deserves to be fed and who should be pushed onto the street. I believe that there should be a basic standard of living for all. I'm horribly left wing. On the other hand I do think there is something wrong with a society in which a woman is continuing in a parental role after letting her daughter get pregnant at the age of 12! I do worry about the fact that there appears to be no way to prevent this from happening again in our system and I do worry about the fact that this is a situation which is happening elsewhere.

Hrm. All worrying.

Re: Teenage mothers

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

I'm in two minds about the vulnerable in society thing. On one hand I know of people who desperately need the benefits they get because they just don't have any other options. Knowing that though, they still make the best of what they have and make a decent income. Specifically, our across the road neighbors, the woman is virtually crippled and the man has pretty much given his life up to take care of her. Even the evil neighbor next door who listens to loud country music counts. These people are the vulnerable. They don't have options, they can't do what we do. That's the end of it.

Women who get themselves pregant young and then suckle on the teat of the mother country? I don't see them as being as vulnerable. Women now don't have the set backs they did say 30 years ago. Though we still have plenty... It's more difficult with a child to get a good job but that isn't to say they don't exist. What I don't see from the UK governmet is an active plan to give them options. The term 'benefits' is an interesting one. Why not 'hand outs' or 'spare change?' I mean, you get pregnant at 15 and you get 'benefits...' What does that sound like? Does it sound negative?

In the US, a few states piloted Welfare to Work programs that were very effective. It gave young women with little education and no job skills things that would make them marketable in the workforce. Companies were given tax benefits if they hired them and the jobs were all at a living wage. Childcare was provided for (or an allowance of some kind) and they were effectively re-introduced to society. That's the kind of plan I like to see.

I have to admit that my background colors a lot of my judgement about things like this. I was raised by a woman who started out popping maggots of cow's asses on a farm in Oregon to now being a Masters educated teacher well within the middle class bracket. I had a pretty good single mother role model to go by (and have very little tolerance for able bodied supposed victims of society.) So, I'm a bit prejudiced.

The other problem is definitely the lack of stigma. If the authorities did take away her children and point out her complete lack of parenting skills then could you imagine the outcry? 'Woman's children taken away because they were pregnant!' It would be the Sun doing it as well. People would be writing angry letters saying these young girls shouldn't be penalized for their 'mistakes' and that we should be living in modern times, etc, etc. There is definitely something wrong there though. It smells very much to me like a complete lack of personal responsibility with all of them. Remember though, it's not the fact they're violent, it's the hoods that made them do it...

[lilitufire.livejournal.com]

It's the mother I want to shake very hard. Or something.

Kids should not grow up thinking their only purpose in life is baby machines.

Re: Teenage mothers

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

Yeah...I totally agree with the outcry if those children were put in care. It's why social services are so scared to do anything - social workers are put under a horrible amount of pressure in which they seem to be damned no matter what they do.

*ponders more*

I think there is also always the problem with a welfare system that it's got to be pretty hard to tell who deserves the benefits and who doesn't, especially when writing rules which are meant to apply equally to everyone. There probably are young mothers who are fairly desperately vulnerable and need support. But how to differentiate between the two?

[melsner.livejournal.com]

Does the mother get an increased welfare check for having more mouths to feed? I've heard of some icky examples where, financially, this kind of thing is almost encouraged.

It's also scary to think that if you'd had a kid when you were 12, they'd be what, 15? You could be a grandmother by now.

[kiffkin.livejournal.com]

IIRC, they're living rent free and get £31,000 per year between them in benefits.

Re: Teenage mothers

[wildrogue.livejournal.com]

I'm inclined to agree with both of you. Over the years, my mother being the social worker that she is, I've looked into this problem a number of times for various school related projects. The stats are scary. six years ago (and I don't think this has changed much) Britain had the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe. Not Western Europe but the whole thing. This is not just a matter of education. We all know where babies come from and initiatives are aimed specifically at explaining this to the so called 'underprivileged' classes. At the risk of sounding hideously snobbish I protest at this label and everything that goes with it. I spent my teenage years living in one of the worse areas, economically speaking, of the west country. Poverty rates there are as low as some inner-city areas, they just don't get the same press due to lower population density and lack of violent crime (it's hard to form a gang in the middle of a field). While I may have been economically better off than many of my peers I had the same educational and recreational opportunities as they did. In fact after I was sixteen I wasn't even that much better off. I cannot see a reason why they should live off benefits other than force of habit. A case in point is two friends of mine, both of whom I am still close to. Both had relatively stable homes and working class (I hate this term, we all work) parents. While the parents of one were divorced her mother had another partner and a stable income. Things were hard for both families. Only real difference - one girl lived on a small council estate, the other did not. The former family received benefits, the other did not. One is now working hard for a major supermarket chain with good chances of promotion and planning on going to Japan for six months next year to teach English. The other (the first family) is unemployed, not willing to push herself or her boundaries to get a job and about to get married. They had similar exam results and both went through further education. Please bear in mind these are both dear friends of mine.
There is no good reason why able bodied, perfectly capable people should not support themselves. I'm not saying give them nothing, but give them and incentive to push themselves. The friend about to get married would have made an exceptional nurse, she had all the right qualities, but she was never encouraged to do so by anyone except her friends. What we need to change is attitude. We have to break the council estate ethic that the state is responsible for people's welfare and behaviour. I'm just not sure how this could be achieved.

[wildrogue.livejournal.com]

Yep, that's more than the combined incomes of myself and my partner. I know people bringing up families on less than this with little or no state help. And they are doing just fine.

[faerierhona.livejournal.com]

Now, as a teenage single mum myself, I have to say I agree with you. I was 19, nearly 20, well eductaed, taking precautions, and in a good job before going to study European Law at University followed by a carreer in the diplomatic service.

Accidents happen, which was the case with me. Pills and condoms, Ashley was nearly called Houdini! But then I took responsibility, and my parents helped in the way families do. I moved back home, got a job there, went to University when he was a year old, and continued to be a responsible mother. The only time I have been on Income Support was when I was studying and the year he was diagnosed with special needs and needed me at home. (also the year my marriage ended)

I don't think forced adoption helps, but I do think there should be compulsory parenting clases for kids in school - along with lifeskills such as paying bills. I think that perhaps much like the YTS scheme where if you attend you get training and a little money, the same could be offered to young girls but in relation to bringing up their child. (You get an extra tenner a week for attending 3 classes or something)

As for the mother? I wonder how old she was when she had her first? And it's easy to blame her, but she is probably poorly educated herself.

[silver-blue.livejournal.com]

It is, admittedly, £31k a year including rent. Without rent it's just over £19k, which is supporting four mothers, two children, and a 'T-Jay'.

[silver-blue.livejournal.com]

According to the paper, the mother is 38, so 22 when she had her first child.

Interestingly, reading a little bit further beyond the "Mother blames schools for kids' pregnancy" headlines, she actually made a little bit of sense. She said she felt responsible herself, was shocked and unaware that her kids were behaving like this, wondered what she could have done to change things, and also commented that she thought there should be more effective sex education in schools. Slightly different than the spin put on it by the headlines.

[cryx]

Hmmm.. i don't know the full story. I was disgusted by the 'schools should do more! not my fault!' angle.
I feel less outraged hearing your findings tbh!

I still think that education on relationship matters should start at home. I do think that sex education could be vastly improved, but it shouldn't just be left in schools care.

[sea-of-flame.livejournal.com]

*nods* Not read the original article, but as ever, the story beyond the headlines is often more meaningful than the soundbite in big letters ;)

It perhaps _should_ start at home - but while parents are usually shown how to put a nappy on their child by a midwife, by the time their children are of an age to need sex education, the family's usually been left well alone by local authorities, and parents don't necessarally know where to start on teaching their child about this stuff!

At least the schools do actually have a syllabus, training, teaching aids, and accurate information!

What we perhaps need is to actually start seeing 'How to discuss drugs with your child' 'How to discuss sex with your child' leaflets in places like the doctor's surgery, to give parents an idea of where to start - what sort of age kids are likely to start asking questions, or become aware of things at school unofficially, what the local authority's provisions are for providing information to children directly & what information comes at what age, some idea of how to broach a conversation, some recommended books/publications with clear child-friendly diagrams and information so they can read in their own time if they're embarrassed to discuss with parents directly... - instead of just the 'Drugs kill' 'Babies ruin your chance at life' kind of scare-mongering pamphlets that are supposedly aimed at the kids themselves!

[faerierhona.livejournal.com]

*nods* that does make it rather different

Re: Teenage mothers

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

I don't think there's really any way to do it on paper. There are some people who find the benefits system a degredation to their self esteem. There are some who know they'll make more money by not working and don't ever want to work. To differentiate between the two would take something that a governmental body doesn't have: intuition.

A lot of it is the complete lack of trust for social workers and people in authority generally. They're viewed with derision in the sort of Sun reading society we live in. That really undermines their credibility and ability to use intuition.

Re: Teenage mothers

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

I don't think class actually means income in this day and age. Someone who say, makes 20,000 a year has many of the same opportunities as another who makes 40,000. At least in the terms of luxury items and creature comforts. I think class more has to do with value systems and outlook.

I was raised in a low income family as well. The difference was? Prospects. I do sometimes wonder if that word has to do with the whole 'American Dream' thing. It's pretty much beaten into you at a young age that you can do whatever you want, etc, etc.... As a child, my whole life was about prospects. What should I do? In some ways, I was even suffocated with too many prospects. That was still when Job For Life was the goal (changed fairly dramatically now.)

If you give kids hope and that P word then I think they usually respond. First you have to let them know that they are not entitled to anything.

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

I would post the same meme, but since only 3 of my answers would differ from yours...

Re: Teenage mothers

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

Oh - I think kids are entitled to some things. I think they are entitled to respect, to fair treatment, to politeness from everyone, I think they are entitled to know that there is nothing they can't do if they put their mind to it.

Those are fundementals.

I'm sure that's mostly what you think anyway, and by 'entitled' you meant 'they don't get money for nothing' which is a good thing to know anyway.

I was brought up in a fairly dramatically different family to yours. My family are fairly financially well off, and I don't think I ever remember having to worry about money when I was little. I'm sure my parents did, but never to a level of 'we can't afford shoes', and by the time I was in my teens I think they had paid off the mortgage and were pretty solid. Then (as most people know) I had a bit of a 'relative holocaust' in which half the people I was related to died - three grandparents, my aunt and my mother - and this left me with an inheritance fund.

As a result, I've been really financially stable independently for a while. However, some thing that has been hammered into me is responsibility. OK, I've had the luxury to be able to take a year off and do my masters. And that's coz I'm lucky, but equally I have a responsibility to do well in my masters, work hard, and I also have a responsibility to have done something worthwhile, like do a masters, instead of just taking a year off and sitting around role playing.

I think responsibility and even 'duty' are words which are also underused at times.

That's a completely random aside, just me pondering different ways of upbringing.

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

I dunno...I did read through the entire article, and while she wasn't quite as black and white as the headlines sounded, she did strike me as trying to abdicate some level of responsibility. I also read an interview yesterday with the family of one of the fathers of the babies, who was 14 when the baby was born. They were describing the mother of the girls as allowing the teenage couple to have sex in her house - the son apparently fairly openly stayed over and would wander downstairs in his boxers, and the neighbours had made comments to the police and social services who had been involved before.

From those accounts it doesn't seem as if it was too much of a shock to her that those girls were sexually active.

I wasn't too impressed with the boy's family either, who probably should also have been more aware, but were determinedly trying to blame the Williams family.

Re: Teenage mothers

[wildrogue.livejournal.com]

Yup. I agree completely. Nice icon btw.

Hahahhahaha!

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

and a 'T-Jay'.

Yeah, I'm not really sure what the fuck that is either.

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

I think part of the problem with sex education being very schools based is that children do need to know about things at different ages. For example, I was a very shy 12 year old, who really did just curl up and die inside when people around me started talking about condoms etc. I really don't think I'd have gotten through a 'put the condom on the banana' session at that age.

Admittedly, I'm also latex intolerant and get a rash when exposed to it, so I suspect I'd have had a bad time in such classes at any age.

Anyway, kids need to know different things at different ages. For some children I think it would be a case of pushing knowledge on them when they are still enjoying being kids. I think for others it is very valid to start offering very down to earth and practical advice at a young age. That makes it kinda hard to offer institutional and standardised education. Hrm...on the other hand the parents are always going to be less willing to accept if their child is sexually precocious.

I guess it does need to be half and half. I'm wondering if maybe schools could offer things like 'drop in' centres - basically - add some kind of sex education on to the facilities already providing by a school nurse, to make the information available if kids are getting curious.

Re: Hahahhahaha!

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

That isn't a name! It's some kind of brand!

When I was working in America I was working with a lot of lovely lovely kids from the inner city of Philadelphia. And my god! Some of the names they had!

I had a 'Precious', a 'Princess' and a 'Jezebel' amongst my kids at various times. I did wonder if no one had explained to Jezebel's mother what the hell she was naming her little girl!

[cryx]

i remember vividly an occasion when my god sister and friend were talking about sex, saying they'd definitely do it before 16! they had condoms which they got out to show, and i was mortified! We were 14 and the idea of such things was all scary and naughty etcetc. I remember my huge embarrisment and horror at it all.

Then at 15 I went out with a guy for 10 months and one thing led to another in the end. Just goes to show that you can't predict!

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

*grins*

Tis true. And people do change a lot, sometimes in the other way. I had a very odd conversation with an old friend of mine from school a while ago. When we were at school she was definitely one of the people I viewed as 'sexually confident', shall we say. She was very pretty, very outgoing, and did go through a lot of men.

These days she is married, respectable, and says things like 'teenagers these days. I mean, when we were at school we liked our ponies, and we read books, didn't we?' and I sit there and think 'did I hallucinate half my adolescence?'

Very strange.

[cryx]

hhehehe.. that is weird! I think we all rewrite our past to some extent without realising it. I wonder how my memories of my school days tally with others?

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

On a total tangent - I really think memory is a horrifically unreliable medium. We remember the things we think are important, and forget a lot of other stuff, but 'what is important' is such a subjective call.

I also think that's really easy to overanalyse the past and totally change it through reinterpretation.

[cryx]

*nods lotsly*

[chrisvenus]

They are now two weeks overdue, and I just seem to have no ability to return the bloody things

Surely its not that hard? If driving is too much effort (whcih for a day I can see it would be) then pick up the two books you are returning. Pick up a book or two more to read on route. Get the bus/tube/whatever to victoria. Get teh oxford tube to oxford. Return books. Get oxford tube to london. Get bus/tube/whaveter "home".

Or of course you can skip the last half and stay in oxford since that is techically where you live at the moment, I believe. :)

Its not hard and will mean that the poor bastard who has been assured the books would be back two weeks ago since that is when they were due back will actually be able to get a sniff of these things.

If you're still using them then fair enough but if they just need to be returned then really do it because its unfair on others who might want them.

And do note in this plan that its all public transport so you can read books on route so you can't even claim you lose much work time. Its not as efficient because making notes and stuff is tricky but reading over stuff is easy. :)

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

History of lycanthropy is still being used. The 'art of Byzantium' isn't at the moment, which I feel very guilty about. The only redeeming feature about that is that I know the same book is available in the Sackler and in the Bodleian at the moment and is only really ever used by Byzantine Studies people as a first term text.

But yes. I do feel guilty and I am being shit. The even more pathetic bit to this story is that I spent all of last week when I was in Oxford saying 'OK...I'll return these books', and still failing. I managed to get books back to the Sackler, get more books out, have a tutorial and STILL haven't made the History Department library.

I now have a goal to get them back today. *looks determined*

[chrisvenus]

Good girl. :)