Are they "mentally ill" or

is there something else at work here? 

I refuse to believer that "up to half of preschoolers have a mental health disorder". At least a third of them have a serious one.  This is a wild claim that, if true, should be sending everyone into panic mode. Nevertheless this is what was being suggested in the article in yesterday's state newspaper.

Apparently "anxiety" is a big thing now. I delved a little deeper into the report. Yes, "separation anxiety", "depression", "conduct disorders", "panic attacks" and then "ADHD", "oppositional defiance disorder" were all mentioned.

These are children under the age of five and they are already being labelled as having serious mental health issues. One in five are described as having "two or more serious mental health issues". 

I tried finding more about this from official sources and I am waiting to read how the research was actually conducted. Still, the report was there and, true or not, too many people will feel an inclination to believe it.  

This is ridiculous. Yes, very young children can have issues but are they mental health issues or are they issues caused by the environment in which they find themselves? I am not intending to include children who have very obvious issues such as severe autism here. I am simply asking this about your "average" child, the child going through "the terrible twos", the "why and what threes" and "frightful fours". These are children who, although it may not seem that way to harassed parents, are growing up. They are growing through normal stages of development. 

If a child is left with strangers from six months of age so that both parents can go back to work does it perhaps contribute to issues they might have about being separated from their parents? They may not see the same adults every day at day care. Those adults rarely have the time to offer undivided attention, to answer questions, handle problems. Is anxiety arising from these things mean the child is somehow at fault or mentally ill? Their parents do not spend so much time with them. When they do see them then it is at times of the day when they are in a rush to get the child to day care so they can go to work. At the end of the day the child is tired and often fractious.  A parent can get irritable too.

Small children do get frightened easily. I watched one who had been happily playing on a ride on toy in the shopping centre. The adult in charge of him, presumably his mother had moved out of his line of vision. He suddenly realised it and was, for a moment, panic stricken. As soon as he saw her and was comforted he went back to playing. Does that mean he has "panic attacks" or is it normal child behaviour?

Children will test boundaries too. "No" is a favourite word in their vocabulary. It is one they learn early. It is a powerful word and they know how it can be manipulated. Does that mean they are showing "oppositional defiance disorder" at all times? Of course there are children who show more serious behaviours in relation to defiance but sound consistent discipline from all the adults around them puts and end to most of it. Does that happen when there are different rules at home, at day care, with grandparents?

And do those children really have attention deficits? Are they really unable to sit still when required to do so? My experience of reading bedtime stories has been that small children will bounce around and wriggle even while they are listening to a story. It does not mean they are not listening. Sometimes it means they are anticipating. I also know their attention span can be very short. When they are involved in pushing the plastic dinosaur through dirt the span for concentration can double or triple. 

I might be completely wrong but I am wondering whether many of the "mental health" problems are being created by adults. Are we simply demanding what the child cannot deliver in an environment which is telling him, "Don't try to explore, to ask, to build relationships. Just do as you are told. " 

 

 

Having ten children is

surely irresponsible now? 

There was a "human interest" story about a family with ten children in yesterday's paper. It was about how hard they found it to "make ends meet". The mother spoke of the size of the grocery bill, not being able to afford new clothes for any of them, that they had not been on holiday for two years and more.

I do not quite know what the point of the story was because of course ten children would be expensive to feed. I also wondered how well they were being fed because apparently she only buys 15litres of milk a week. That is only just over a litre each in a week. That is not much for a child. Even if the adults go without it is not much for a child. Yes, they have a vegetable garden but the mother also talked about buying 80c packets of cake mix to feed them. I wonder how much food value there is in cheap cake mix? Do they, even with the kitchen garden they claim to have, get well fed? 

My paternal grandparents came from large families, eleven on one side and nine on the other. In the late Victorian era this was considered quite normal but should it be considered normal now? I think my paternal grandparents ate well for the times. There was a lot of fish available for my paternal grandfather. He and his brothers may have caught most of it.  Great-grandma, if the recipes handed down to us are any example, also knew how to make use of everything a sheep or cow had to offer. She knew about potatoes, pumpkin and carrots too. She grew beans and peas and more. There were no "takeaway" meals available. My paternal grandmother came from a farm and there was clearly no shortage of food at Spring Farm. The Senior Cat could remember many meals there as a child. One of his jobs when he was there was to churn the butter. Milk came straight from the cow. There was a vegetable garden and fruit trees. Feeding all those children was possible because of those resources. Yes, they bought other essentials like flour and rice but most food was there on the farm.

This would not be possible with ten children on a small urban block without access to something like free fish. 

I have a distant cousin with six children. They were "home schooled" and I sometimes wondered how easy it was to feed them. I knew something about how much they could eat because they would descend on us once a month for woodwork lessons with the Senior Cat. I would feed them with some help from their grandmother. The first thing I would do was supply them with a mid morning milk drink and six milk drinks plus tea for five adults was an extra two litres of milk alone. They were nice, well behaved children who have grown into nice, responsible adults but I did wonder what they missed out on sometimes.

Brother Cat and Middle Cat and their partners made the decision to stop at two. "Replace yourselves," they said. Their children have a sibling. By modern standards they were not given much spoiling but they were given opportunities and they used them. They have appeared in films, on stage, played sport, work in medicine, law and education and built a multi-million dollar business.  Many people describe them as "lucky" but in reality they were made to work for what they have. They could not have had the opportunities which laid the foundation for these things if there had been six or ten children. Their experiences would have been not necessarily better or worse but they would have been different.

I really do wonder though about people choosing to have ten children now. Yes, they are getting a considerable amount of government assistance to feed the children they have chosen to have. Was it really a responsible choice though? What was acceptable 120-150 years ago relied on a different sort of lifestyle altogether, one that most people no longer live.   

The "Muslim" issue will have to be

addressed at some point. Trying to pretend it does not exist or is some sort of Islamophobia is not going to do that.

A Muslim friend of mine did address this issue as we came out of the library yesterday.

"Cat, I'm worried.  This phobia thing is not going away. We are good people. We work hard but now A... is finding people do not treat him quite the same way at work. In the library it is good but in the shops it can be bad. I am trying not to use the car but we did need petrol and the man at the service station was hostile."

I really did not know what to say. I did not want to upset her but I know she is right. What I wanted to say is unacceptable.

I wanted to tell her. "Don't dress the way you do. Ditch that hijab now. Don't try telling people what you have just said to me. They will not believe it. A... does give the impression he believes he is superior to you and to any other woman." 

I would like to know what was said at the mosque last Friday but I am also afraid that it will have encouraged the sense of superiority her husband displays. He is always polite to me but it is distant. I am a woman and woman are not equal to men. He has told me this. He thinks of himself as being "very liberal" (his own words) but is he? Perhaps he is within his own culture but many of the men I know would not dream of treating a woman the way he does. What is more their wives would have something to say if they did. My friend P... accepts it. He behaves as she expects him to behave. Yes, it is much better than some Muslim men I have known but it is different. His religion requires it of him. This is what he has been taught to believe.

So where do you begin with that sort of problem? It is not a simple issue. There can be "education" but this is religion and, as I know all too well, religious beliefs will all too often take precedence over all other beliefs. How else would otherwise highly educated people believe that something like a blood transfusion was wrong? How else would others believe that their god does not expect them to be happy, simply obedient? How else would they refuse to allow their child life saving treatment or demand they miss out on any form of celebration?

Our national constitution, rightly, does not allow laws to be made about religion. That is actually not the problem. The problem is the "we are right and you are wrong and what we say must prevail" attitude of some.

It is also why our Prime Minister made a major error in attending an Eid service. He reportedly had himself invited which makes it an even bigger concern. There had to be a police and other security presence there to ensure his safety. Some present let him know what they thought in no uncertain terms. That has never been necessary at a church, a temple or a synagogue. It was wrong. Even if an invitation had been freely given he should have excused himself politely. The events at Bondi are still too raw. We do have an issue and it is not going to go away simply because everyone is being told they need to be more tolerant. 

 

  

An $85m pay out?

Apparently the "sacked" presenter of a radio show I had not even heard of is seeking that extraordinary sum as "compensation" for being sacked. 

I do not choose to listen to radio. I do not actually own one any more. Even when I did have one I did not listen often.

I grew up in a family where the radio was turned on for the news service and, as we kittens grew old enough, to listen to "the Argonauts". (For those of you who do not know this was a very well presented program for older children. It was definitely "educational" or we would not have been permitted to listen to it.) Apart from that we did not listen to the radio.

It meant I grew up knowing nothing about the latest "pop" songs to "hit the charts". I had no idea who the performers were. I had no idea who presented these shows. My ignorance was so great that it was not until I went to school in the city that I had heard of the Beatles. I was genuinely confused about the fuss that was being made. My new class mates were very kind to me but I was still bewildered. I didn't actually like the music. My old class mates knew more about classical music because it was what the cows preferred. (Yes, seriously!) 

My paternal grandmother liked silence. The radio, apart from the news, irritated her. My paternal grandfather would sometimes "listen to the cricket" but I suspect he was really asleep. My maternal grandparents did listen to radio in the evenings but not when we were there.  Nana must have listened during the day as well because she sometimes argued with a neighbour about something that had been said. The radio was not on when we there.

But the Senior Cat was like his mother. He liked silence while he worked. He was comfortable with his own thoughts. I am comfortable with my own thoughts. The avoidable noise of other people is something I find irritating. I do not want to hear the endless chatter of radio presenters. Above all the "talk back" shows where people can "phone in" and "have their say" make me squirm. I am intolerant. I know I am intolerant. I do not need to be tolerant do I?

So when I learn that someone apparently had a radio show where they also had a "contract" for $100m and they have now been "sacked" for their lewd remarks on air, remarks which went just too far for their female co-presenter to tolerate, then I can feel no sympathy. Presumably the sum this person was being paid represented something of the advertising the show generated. What it tells me is that too much money is spent on advertising...and far too much is spent on deliberately provocative radio presenters. 

Thankfully I do not have to listen to them.   

No, it was not a "landslide"

even though the result was largely as expected. 

As I am writing this the results of the state election are being analysed and discussed and argued...and more. There is a claim that the winning party won "by a landslide". 

That is wrong. They managed to get 39.1% of the first preference vote at the last count. It means that almost four in ten people wanted them before any other party. After that they had to rely on the second or third preferences or more. In other words people were put in a position where, like it or not, they had to choose another candidate or candidates apart from their first choice. 

Yes, some of you will be tired to death of me saying that yet again. You may even stop reading the blog. Some of you will tell me "it's fairer than first past the post" or "it is fairer than any other system". No, it isn't. It is no more or less fair. It is simply the electoral system we are stuck with. 

What I want to say here however is that the way the media is portraying all of this is a problem. It is not educating people about the way the system works. Is it their role to do this? That is another question.

Given that most adults in this country know almost nothing about actual politics and do not educate the young then it likely is the role of the media. They will not do it but perhaps they should. Of course the problem is that, in order to do it in a fair way, the media would need to be (and remain) apolitical at least while dealing with the topic of voting. It is not something they would find easy to do. Our ABC (the approximate equivalent of the BBC) is unashamedly left wing. If a more "conservative" government came in they may find there are demands to at least "be more inclusive" or "broaden their perspective". It is unlikely to happen. They have an agenda and intend to stick to it.

But they have at least raised the issue of the far right party abusing the preferential voting system in a way of which few people are aware. They were almost encouraging an "informal" vote which then, under arcane rules, requires the electoral commission to make decisions that may not be in accordance with a voter's intentions. If ever there was a reason for a review of our electoral system then this must be it.  

 

Church bells may not be

rung on Sundays.  The "adhan" is allowed five times a day.

Some years ago one of our local churches was ordered by a court to cease ringing the church bell on Sunday mornings. It had been rung ever since the church had been built. It had been rung for three minutes before the mid-morning Sunday service and for funerals. 

The reason it was ordered to cease ringing the bell was because a young couple had bought a house in the square in which the church stands. They found the bell annoying. It interfered with their ability to sleep in on a Sunday morning. Their right to peace and quiet on a Sunday morning was seen to be greater than the right to remind people it was time for the Sunday morning service. 

The young couple had bought the house knowing that the bell would be rung on Sunday mornings but they proceeded anyway. The court ruled in their favour.

It was a decision which still causes concern today. I believe it was the wrong decision. The bell may well have been an irritant but it was doing no harm. Even more than that the young couple knew and could have avoided the problem by buying a house elsewhere. (At the time this would have been very possible.) 

The polling booth at which I voted is opposite that church and someone I know reminded me of the story as I was leaving. They went on to say, "I wonder what would have happened if it had been a mosque and they had that prayer thing." It was an interesting idea. What would have happened if it had been a mosque and the adhan had been called five times a day?

My guess, and I am certain I would be right, is that the mosque goers would have won. They would certainly win now. There would be absolutely no question about that. No court in this country would rule against such a practice. 

The adhan does not bother me. I would probably cease to notice it if I lived near a mosque. I am far more bothered by the recent public gatherings and displays of "prayer" by Muslims. Christians have been prevented from praying in public spaces - and not just outside abortion clinics. I am certain if a large group of Christians descended on one of the squares in the CBD and started to disrupt traffic, even just pedestrian traffic, with prayer they would be held to be a "public nuisance" and moved on. When Muslims do it we are asked to move around them. There is no reason for either group to do such a thing but it seems we must view such acts differently according to the beliefs of those committing them.

I am aware of what recently happened in another state. I am aware that our Prime Minister and one of his Ministers were "invited" to Eid prayers at a mosque. I am aware they went although I believe they should have found excuses not to go. I am aware that a British MP is in hot water for expressing concern about a public display of "faith" for Eid. I also believe it is likely that any attempt by Christians to do the same sort of thing on Good Friday would be blocked.

There are double standards here. Muslim extremists are demanding and getting the "right" to make public displays of their faith. Christians are being told that any sort of public display of their faith at Christmas or Easter is not acceptable. Schools provide "prayer rooms" for Muslims but not chapels for Christians or temples for Buddhists. 

I remember going  to the loo on the plane to England last year. I had to step around a man kneeling on a prayer mat. He still had to shift. He glared at me. He was blocking access to the facilities and obviously believed his right to pray was greater than my access to bathroom facilities. I find it hard to believe that any higher being actually requires me to avoid going to the loo just so someone else can perform a ritual five times a day. 

Perhaps we need to start asking, "Who is being controlled here, who is doing the controlling, why and what do they hope to get from it?" 

  

No, they are not "autistic"

and it is time to stop saying they are.

I refer you to those people who would once have been labelled "a bit eccentric". They functionally perfectly well in society. They may have traits which irritate or annoy you but they are not "autistic". 

I know I have said similar things elsewhere but I will say them again. It is important people know the difference. 

There is a vast difference between someone who does not relate to other people, is not toilet trained, cannot feed themselves, is frequently destructive, cannot entertain themselves at all and has no means of any form of communication and a person who has the ability to hold down any sort of job in open employment. The latter person may not be able to read or write or they may have a doctorate in organic chemistry or physics. They may appear to be "a bit odd", "strange", "not exactly shy but not very sociable", "obsessive" or a range of other things others (who do not share those traits) find uncomfortable. It does not make them "autistic". 

Once upon a long time ago these people would almost certainly have been considered "normal". Now apparently they need to be labelled. They need to be given a "condition".  

It is rather like "high blood pressure" and "cholesterol". The "acceptable" readings for those things have been lowered over time. I did a little research about that. In the 1940's an "acceptable" reading for a fifty year old was apparently 190/50. In the 1950s it had gone down to 180/100. By the 1960's it had gone down to 160/95. In 1970 it had gone down still further to 140/90. I will stop the history there and say that an "acceptable" level now, according to my doctor, is "no more than 120/80".  Cholesterol readings show a similar sort of pattern. If we do not reach these levels then we apparently need to be medicated.  

What you believe about these things and how you handle them is entirely your affair. Is it however a similar story with human behaviour? Have our ideas about what is acceptable, what we can tolerate in the behaviour of others changed? 

I think it might have. The "fidgety" child in the classroom has now been diagnosed with "attention deficit hyperactivity disorder" or ADHD.  Does that child really have a disorder or do they need a different level of before school activity and a breakfast consisting of good quality fuel and not sugar laden cereal? Do they need to have walked or run to school and then spent time running around the playground? Is their friend who appears to be failing to pay attention and constantly wandering around doing so for some external reason? Might it possibly be one related to modern technology or a means of gaining attention in a world where  parents are too busy to care? Is something wrong at home? 

Is there a possibility, as I have said elsewhere, that the classroom is the problem? The child really is "normal" (whatever that is) but the way the classroom is set up and run is not one which provides the best learning outcomes? Is it actually providing the best learning outcomes for any child? Might there be reasons for the "drop in standards" which actually have nothing to do with the child(ren) and everything to do with the way we expect them to learn?  

I might be wrong but I am not sure medication is the answer to everything.  I would like to see some changes in the education policies of the party which will get re-elected today. Unfortunately it is likely to be more of the same policies which I suspect are not working.