Adults can be bullied too

and there is more of it now. 

There is an article in this morning's paper from the Chairman of something called the "anti-defamation commission". In it he is suggesting that access to social media is a major factor in bullying. This is the justification for denying those under the age of fourteen to access to all manner of social media. Take it away, or so the argument goes, and bullying will decrease. It will go back to manageable levels and do less harm. 

The jury is out on that one. I am wondering however if the problem goes back further than the advent of social media. 

Most people would look on radio as a wonderful thing. It brought entertainment into the homes of ordinary people. At first you needed to purchase a licence but technology overcame the possibility of controlling that.  "Trannies" were the big thing of my youth. It meant we could take a radio with us anywhere there was a strong enough signal and listen to all manner of things. There were households where the radio would be on all day and well into the night. The number of broadcasting stations increased. The variety increased. Commercial radio came into being with all the advertising jingles and more. 

And there was no longer any need to go outside your own home in order to be "entertained". You could simply sit and listen in comfort (or otherwise) "at home".  This did not happen immediately of course. It happened over time. Access to radio had to become widespread. The variety had to be there. "Talk back" radio was still a while away so there was no interaction with other people. Here most people still went to church on Sunday mornings and often went visiting on Sunday afternoons. There was sport and there were other clubs and interest groups. Young people had Scouts, Guides, church "youth groups" and the like. They went to the pictures on Saturday nights in groups. 

Television came in and there was a decline in these activities too. There was even more reason, or so people thought, to stay at home and be entertained. Social interactions were still there but not quite as common as the pre-television days. It happened without people even being aware of it. You might not be talking and interacting with the radio or the television set but you were being entertained. 

Bring in the widespread use of the internet and then social media and you suddenly had a way of "communicating" with each other without actually having to mix with them at all. There was no need to leave your own home to have "social contact" with other people. 

We have been led to believe that this is good. Some people have hundreds of friends on Facebook. They spend hours on Snapchat and more hours looking at video clips on Tik Tok. They "research" issues on Wikipedia and more. Social life is centred around the mobile phone, the big television screen and similar items. You can do the "self-serve" thing in the supermarket or keep your eyes on your phone screen so you do not need to chat to the checkout person. 

And people do just that. Some of them "work from home" and have almost no interaction with other people at all. Is it any wonder we have a rise in mental health issues? When we do see other people we no longer know how to act easily and naturally. We worry that we might have said the politically incorrect thing. Things are said "in fun" because we are nervous and anxious. It develops from there and the "teasing" turns into "bullying" instead.

There is more to it than that of course but the adults demanding an end to social media access for young people perhaps first need to look at what might just be a bigger problem - we no longer communicate with each other as easily as we once did. 

Taxi vouchers only help if

you can afford to pay the fare and the taxi turns up in time to get you to your destination. This may explain why I have only used my own "taxi card" three times in two years.

Let me explain. Taxi vouchers are available for people with a range of disabilities who have sufficiently serious mobility issues and cannot use all forms of public transport. 

I had no intentions of getting a card. I can, with some difficulty, still get the trike on a train. I can go anywhere the trains go and then pedal still further.  I cannot use a bus because trikes are not allowed on buses. Buses go to many more destinations than trains of course but... 

Of course it was Middle Cat and our doctor who put their heads together and decided that I was eligible for taxi vouchers. These days the "vouchers" are actually a card you present to the driver but the cards still tend to be referred to as "vouchers". If you have one then you are eligible for one or other of two things. There are half-price fares for people who can use regular taxis and ten per cent fares for people who are dependent on "access" cabs - the vehicles which take the person still in their wheelchair.  Both these things still cost more than going by public transport. As a "senior" the train costs me nothing as long as I can get the trike on and off the train without the wheelchair ramp. (I have yet to challenge that.)

Yes, it costs something but it is still a much better scheme than no scheme at all. This is perhaps why, at our library knitting group yesterday, someone queried why J... was not there again.

J... has not been there for the past three meetings. I am not sure if she will come again. She should not be driving but I suspect she still is and that the doctor has, as they often do, given in to her demand to keep her licence - if she has renewed it. Does she have taxi vouchers? "Somewhere". She does not want to use them. Recently she had to attend a clinic at a hospital. She is perfectly capable of ringing the taxi company and ordering a cab but the nearby aged care home organised it instead. When the taxi did not turn up someone rushed around and took her to the appointment. Yes, sometimes taxis do not appear when requested. It is a constant problem here. The other problem is that drivers resent doing "short" trips. They only want to do extended journeys. The access cab drivers are better at short trips but that is perhaps the nature of their work. Regular drivers do not like doing short trips or half-price journeys. (It does not cost them in the end but it does at the time and they know the tips will not be as high.) 

That J... was not there did not surprise me. If it was simply a matter of getting in the car and driving there she might have come but there are multiple issues with doing that now.

As we discussed this I could not help yet again thinking that transport issues do cause isolation.  Not everyone can rely on others to pick them up and transport them where they need to go. Taxis may not always arrive and the cost is often too much. It can leave people with no social life at all. This is especially so when people no longer even know their neighbours. 

I do not know what the answer is - apart from taxis and access cabs for the same price as public transport. That is very unlikely. 

I need to ring J... and at least be sure she has someone to talk to for a short time.     

Teaching the "5Cs" is now

more important than teaching the "3Rs". These are more important than giving students the skills they need to pass the examinations which will give them university entry. This is what we are being led to believe if reports about teaching "critical and creative thinking, character, citizenship, communication and collaboration" are correct. No, you don't teach these things from the time your child is born or from when they enter the education system. This is a special course which is taught over two fifty minute periods each week. Along with something called THRIVE it is intended to turn students into better citizens. It is also intended to make them better students.

I doubt it works. The students at the school where the value of this has been questioned think the course is a joke, rubbish, a waste of time and more. The teachers resent time spent on it. They do not like having to grade students on these skills, sometimes grade students they have never actually taught. All class interaction is supposed to be considered in assessing these things.

It is a long time since I went into a classroom with students in their final year of school. I see enough of the students outside the classroom. I see them in the library. I see them supporting each other there. Sometimes I will exchange a few words or read an essay or give them a little help in the form of asking them a question so they can try and see another way of seeing a problem. It is always a bit of a balancing act.

If you don't have the "5Cs" under control by the time you reach the last year of your schooling then you never will have them. Two fifty minute lessons a week is not going to help. It is more likely to hinder your progress still further. The idea that you can in any way quantify these skills is also ridiculous. Not all students are creative geniuses who participate in class at every opportunity. Some students will work well in groups. Others will be better working alone. Still others will be happier following directions. It does not mean they lack character. What of the very quiet student who simply gets on with the work involved and then, even more quietly, helps another student? Such students do exist. Are they to be penalised for not speaking up? 

It seems to me that this is not about "balance" or "character building" or "turning out good citizens". No, I suspect it is about something else altogether. The program came out of a university which has a compulsory "indigenous studies" course for all students. You are required to do this course no matter what you are studying.  It is a course considered by many to be not about education but about indoctrination. The information and the ideas there cannot be questioned.  The same apparently applies to the 5Cs. 

Learning to be a good citizen should start at home. It can be reinforced at school as and when necessary. It is not something we should be "teaching" students in their final year...because we can't. We should also be allowing them to question...because they will.  

Who has the "right" to public housing?

In one of those odd coincidences there is an article in this morning's paper about someone in public housing. He is an older blind man with a prosthetic leg whose "best friend" is his guide dog. Despite his eyesight and mobility issues he gets around and cares for himself.

The small unit of accommodation next door is currently vacant. The resident is currently the probably unwilling resident in other accommodation. That unit was firebombed and his neighbour only just managed to get out in time before extreme harm was done to him and his dog. It was almost certainly related to drug dealing on the premises - the reason for the absence of the usual resident. 

The purpose of the article was of course to question why, when we have a housing crisis, was the accommodation being held vacant for someone who had broken the law. The answer was along the lines of "well he needs to go somewhere when he gets out". That a person who is homeless through no fault of their own might need accommodation too is apparently not of interest to those responsible for public housing. There is a long list. Put your name on the list. In ten or more years from now you might be lucky.

All this is something I have been thinking about recently as those of us who shop on a regular basis in our local shopping centre are being harassed by a woman who keeps begging for money. Yes, she is in public housing too but should she be there? This woman is painfully thin and unkempt. The staff in one of the local supermarkets know her well. She buys cigarettes there and tries to steal the cheap day old bread. There seems to be a policy to let her get away with that because she can turn violent. It is apparently for the same reason that when she destroys the furniture in her accommodation more appears and someone from the council clears away the accumulated rubbish.

She frequently tries to get money from me. I have never given her any. Most people I know have never given her any but several days ago she had a very elderly and very frail woman bailed up. The older woman looked frightened and tried to move around her but her trolley was grabbed and more demands were made. She tried giving her a little and was apparently told it was not enough. People were simply walking past. They did not want to get involved. I admit I was thankful I was in the middle of a complex transaction in the Post Office and was not in a position to get involved. I am not sure what I would have done anyway. I am a coward I suppose.

The situation sorted itself out when someone who must have known the older woman came along and the younger one moved off shouting. By the time I was out of the Post Office they had all gone. 

I wonder though what should be done about this woman. She is obviously mentally unstable but not so far "out of it" that she does not know what she is doing is wrong. I have seen the police reprimand her but that is all they seem able to do. One of them walked off after she had let out a stream of abuse at him one day. 

And yes, this woman has what should be comfortable accommodation. It is public housing accommodation. It is not simply a single room but an entire "unit" of accommodation. She is not caring for it. Others seem to come and deal with it when the situation gets too bad. So should she be there when there is a "housing crisis" and mothers with young children are sleeping in cars to escape domestic violence? Who is the "more worthy" - if such an idea is even possible?

I know there are no easy answers to any of this but we added to the problem when we closed residential institutions. It might help to have this woman under closer supervision in other accommodation and have a mother and children in the unit perhaps.  

 

 

Daycare, daycare, out of school hours care,

pre-school and grandparent care. By the time most children are five they have seen more of other adults than the people who are supposed to be their parents. 

Yesterday I had a brief conversation with a young mother who is about to go back to work. She has been one of the "lucky" ones whose employer had given her six months maternity leave and held her job open for her. 

"I know I'm lucky," she told me, "So many mums don't get the same opportunity I've had...but I still wish I did not have to go back to work." 

She is going back to work "because we need the money". They are buying a house and run two cars. The new baby is her first "and probably the only one". She thinks they "probably won't be able to afford another". At the same time she "loves motherhood". 

There is something wrong here. Her six month old child is about to enter the "care" system. All the love and attention her little one has been given is now going to be replaced by expensive group care and this will likely continue until the child is considered old enough to be trusted to care for itself.

I bit my tongue and said nothing about how little this person will actually be earning. By the time she has paid out for the sort of day care required I suspect that "going back to work" will not actually increase their income by any significant amount - if at all. Even if she was presented with the actual figures I doubt very much it would convince this person that it might be better to stay at home. Her own "career" depends on returning to work and she has been told, and told often, that her own career is too important to stop work and be a full time parent and partner.

Of course I grew up in a generation when many mothers did not "go to work". They worked as unpaid carers, as child minders, as parent minders, as canteen ladies at the school, as volunteers in other places. They cooked and cleaned, washed and ironed, gardened, made their clothes and ours, heard our "reading" and read to us - and much more. They did all this but they did not "work". Those were just things that mothers did. 

Were they really that "bored" and "unfulfilled"? I am not sure where that came from but I rather doubt it. My memory is of women who worked. They worked hard.

Now it seems they are still expected to do much of that and go to work as well. They have more "labour saving" devices and pre-prepared food, clothes can be flung in a washing machine and do not need to be ironed, the "garden" is "easy care" and some of them will make time to "hear reading" but the bedtime story might well be a DVD or a YouTube video.  Their pre-schooler will know about the "correct pronouns" and "global warming" from their day at pre-school even if they do not know about Peter Rabbit eating too much and Christopher Robin jumping in puddles. 

Something has gone wrong somewhere. The supposed "social-emotional benefits" and the "economic benefits" for the full time return to work might be there but I doubt it. Passing over the care of your child allows for politically correct indoctrination to take place of course. We still seem to believe that even when the problems raised by Soviet or Communist or even some of the kibbutz style child care have become obvious. 

But "mothering" is not important is it? It is some sort of old-fashioned gender based fallacy isn't it? 

Watching that young mother interacting with her young baby I must be too old. I have this odd idea that mothering is important - more important than "going to work".  It just seems wrong that people can no longer afford to work at mothering.  

So YouTube will need to go down

the tube as well will it?

Downunder is supposed to be getting some of the most stringent rules with respect to those under sixteen accessing "social media" and the internet. How this will work and whether it will work are questions which are yet to be answered. 

Now our so-called "e-safety Commissioner" wants to include YouTube in the list of things which under sixteens are banned from accessing. The Commissioner is trying to tell us that teachers, the vast majority of whom apparently use that video streaming site, will still be able to use it in the classroom. It is simply that, outside that, students will not be able to use it. 

This is bordering on the ridiculous. 

I am not a parent but I hope I am as concerned as any parent about what this means. That huge resource which has been used as the means of obtaining information about all sorts of things will no longer be available. Yes, a few young ones might go out and kick a football instead of searching the internet but I doubt the ban is going to have much of an effect on the physical health of the young. 

Will it have a positive effect on their mental health? It might seem like that for a short while. There will be a novelty period where it is claimed it is working but smart "kids" are going to find their way around any ban. If they can break into supposedly secure sites now then breaking into sites which have an age ban is going to be just another challenge. Banning something will simply make it more desirable.

I am guilty of using YouTube myself. I used it to find out how to replace a battery in something yesterday. I then passed the offending item back to a woman who is in her nineties and not confident using a computer. In future am I going to have to log in using a passport type photograph and my birth certificate to prove that I am more than sixteen? 

I have had children tell me that some of their homework has consisted of trying to find information about a topic and doing that research on the internet. Is that going to stop? I have been concerned, and remain concerned, about the quality of some of the information available. There are many things on the internet which are quite frankly wrong. They misinform rather than inform. Banning the young from finding those things might seem like a good idea but is it going to teach them to discriminate? Will they actually be more likely to believe everything they read because they think all the "harmful" material has been filtered out?

The idea that this will stop the other very harmful social behaviours which extend far beyond teasing is another nonsense. It may reduce such behaviours for a while. Those responsible for the ban will tell us it is a success but, having discovered the power of it, students will find a way around it or invent even more harmful ways of hurting.

I doubt banning YouTube or other forms of social media is going to solve the problems that have been created by another generation of over-protective parents who want their children to be "top" of everything and Olympic athletes with it while also not allowing them the freedoms we had in childhood.  Children who are constantly supervised and entertained are never going to learn the social skills necessary to negotiate and compromise and care for each other. We need children who can entertain themselves. We need children who can create their own play and their own games.  I think we should start with that and start early. That way YouTube and social media will return to being a tool for sometimes and not a way of life. 

Imagine putting six dictators on an

island in the middle of an ocean. They would be given the basic materials to build a shelter and food, any medication they need - and nothing more. There would be no means of communicating with the outside world. Once a month a plane could fly over and drop more food. They would remain there until they agreed to cooperate - or killed each other.

What would they do?

Is this a "Lord of the Flies" scenario or something more? Surely it has to be something more than that. Imagine the likes of Putin, Xi, Kim, Khameni, Lukashenko, Hun Sen, Assad, Mnangagwa and others having to try and even live in close proximity to one another. Who would win?  Would one of them end up dictating to the rest of them or would they be killed off one by one? Who would have the skills and the willingness to do that?

I could list even more but you can probably think of some others for yourself. It is also evident to me that others would probably take the place of these men. (I tried to think of some women - if you can think of some let me know. They must be alive today.)

I tried to imagine who might be the first to die. If they were to be killed who would do the deed? If Trump was sent there would he try to "negotiate"? What would Pope Leo do if he was sent to try and sort things out? How would Gutteres handle the situation? What about the aging Dalai Lama?  Is there anyone who could actually sort the situation out?  

Notice I have yet to list a woman in all this. Is there one? 

Would doing this make the United Nations Security Council see sense? I doubt it. The Security Council has to be one of the most ineffective bodies there is. 

I will leave you with those thoughts. Let me know, if you wish, who will blink first - if you can.