The "gender" debate seems ro be

heading in even more directions.

I have always believed people who feel very strongly about the need to alter their gender should be given support. They need it. Making such a change is not easy. It can work well, very well. It can also work badly. It can cause people to lose the support of family, friends, colleagues and careers. We all need to step in and accept their decision. 

That said I also think there are lines which need to be drawn. If a five year old tries to cut off "her" penis then that is a matter for serious concern. It is not a result of a child being "denied" the right to attend a group which has hitherto been "girls only". Five year old children do not, whatever a gender advocate or a journalist might want to say, reason "I am a girl even though I have a penis. I am being told I cannot go to Guides because I have a penis. If I cut off my penis then I can go to Guides."  Yesterday I was told I did not support "gender diversity" because I did not believe a five year old could think this way. The person who told me this and showed me the article in question has extreme views about diversity, so extreme they are of concern to more than one person. Their views impact their job and that is one which involves young children.

I know I am in very dangerous territory here and that the most radical advocates will say that even a three year old can make an informed decision to change gender. All I can say is that many others will disagree with you. It is not so long ago that I came across the mother at the playground who, after I had thrown back the ball which had landed in the road, informed me of her child's "confusion". She had been told by the child's play group leader that children should be "asked" what gender they are. This child was a boy one day, a girl the next and then back to being a boy. He was either very confused or playing a game or perhaps just thought his parent was being silly. You will notice I have used the masculine. His mother said he was "all boy" and "into all the boy things". We may not like the idea that there are objects and ideas which many still relate to the old masculine ideal of sport, cars, engines and the like but the reality is that the idea is still there. "Anything with wheels" is still considered acceptable for boys. It doesn't mean girls cannot be interested but we do not consider it unusual if a boy is. It is simply considered "part of being a boy". 

I do not believe that the move to "ban" some from competing in events at the Olympics is surprising. Apart from anything else there is no "ban" at all. If the athlete is good enough then they can still compete but they may need to compete against a different set of athletes. They will simply not have a potential physical advantage. Whether this is "fair" or not is still being debated of course but I believe it goes further than a willingness to abide by the wishes of the President of the host country. It is a decision which has almost certainly been coming for some time.

There was someone in the chemist this morning. That person was wearing a pink frilly blouse and floral trousers. They had long hair tied back with a pink ribbon. There were sandals with sequins on their feet. The same person was also wearing a mask. I am still wondering whether it was for fear of catching something or infecting someone else - or was it to hide the very obvious facial hair?  The pharmacy assistant was indiscreet enough to inform me that this same person sometimes appears dressed as a male and without a mask. Perhaps they would be happier if we accepted that it is acceptable for men to like things which are often regarded as "feminine". We do not seem to worry too much about girls in masculine work outfits so why do we worry about the reverse?

We have five year old children starting school who are not toilet trained. How can we believe they know and understand so much about their bodies they can make an informed decision about their sexuality? These are ideas being imposed on them by adults.   

The "Kaurna" language

is dead. There are no speakers of the Kaurna language or, more accurately, the Kaurna group of languages as it was spoken in the 19thC.  The last known speaker of a Kaurna language died in 1929. Even by then the language had been lost because the old woman who spoke it had nobody else with whom to speak it and nobody recorded it. 

The present speakers of the Kaurna language are going to be furious with me for saying this. They will say they are "proud speakers" of it and that I know nothing about it or how much it means to them to have preserved. They will be upset and distressed but I believe something needs to be said when someone presumes to tell me that she speak "Kaurna" at home, that it is an ancient language which goes back thousands of years and that it is still relevant today. She tells me I know nothing about this and that it is people like me who make her feel unwelcome in her own country. I will ignore the fact that just one of her great-grandparents was here before white settlement and concentrate on her heritage from the one who was.

I do know something about this through the history of my mother's family. Her paternal grandparents, my great-grandparents on her father's side,  were the "missionaries" in charge of the "aboriginal mission" where the old woman who is said to have spoken it lived for the last part of her adult life. She was the cook there and she was mentioned in letters my mother found when she was clearing out her father's papers.  I might have kept those letters but my mother, who had good reason to loathe her father, destroyed everything. That is, to say the least, unfortunate but I did have a chance to read the letters before they were thrown on a bonfire and I am glad I did. Even as a teenager I wondered about the claim there was an aboriginal language still being spoken in and around the city. Other languages fascinated me even then but I had never heard that one spoken.

 Nobody seemed to know anything about it. Certainly my paternal grandfather knew nothing about it. He would surely have known something because my great-grandmother would have known something. She knew a great many of the local indigenous population when she ran the dairy farm on a river on the other side of the low mountain range. Some of them spoke what would have been an entirely different language but she would have been aware of it as she employed some of the men. (And did so on exactly the same basis and expectations as the "white" men she employed after her husband died.) It seems however the urban indigenous population used English or at least a form of it. This was in the late 19thC and around the docks of the main harbour at the time.

The language was dying then and dying rapidly. Thirty years later there would have been nobody speaking anything like that in the state's "capital". Yes, there would have been some of the intrepid Lutheran missionaries going to the farther reaches of the state to try and find out what they could about the languages spoken there but it is unlikely they recognised the importance of trying to save anything closer to hand. There was a sort of "pidgin" spoken sometimes between the older aboriginals and white settlers but the younger aboriginals spoke better English. Many of them were getting at least some education but it was of course an education in English.

The old woman who is said to have been the last speaker of Kaurna was literate in English and that alone would have meant that her knowledge and understanding of her language had been heavily influenced by her education. Even if someone had attempted to preserve the language it would not have been in any sense "pure". There would have been a need for words the original inhabitants simply did not need.

The same is true now. There were some words, or approximation of words, left. Landforms had sometimes been given names that might have been the names the native population had given them. The accuracy of even those names needs to be questioned though. We simply do not know and there is no way we can find out.

Even if it had been preserved in full any language called Kaurna now would have to have changed dramatically. It would have had to change from the very beginning because there was a massive culture clash. There were too many things that were strange and new and not needed by the original inhabitants. They simply did not have words for many things.

To now suggest that people still speak some sort of language called Kaurna which was spoken when the first settlers arrived is nonsense. There are perhaps some ghostly impressions of that language in what is a new language, a language which of necessity has many words and ideas imported from English and the German once spoken in the hills behind me. 

If people wish to use and develop that language they are welcome to do so. What they are not welcome to do is pretend that it is an old language which needs to be respected as "indigenous" or given that status.  Disagree if you wish but I believe we need to recognise this. 

   

Taking care of the elderly

is something I do know about. I have done it. It is hard work. It requires commitment, organisation, time, patience and any number of other things.

I also know that I was one of the lucky ones. I was incredibly fortunate in that my father, my beloved "Senior Cat", was so easy to care for even when he needed so much help. He was intellectually alert to the end of his life. He was good tempered, polite and forever saying "Thank you".  

I also know I was very fortunate in having my sister, Middle Cat, there to help. She was the one who took him to medical appointments when he could still get in and out of her car. She went with him in the access cab when he could no longer go in the car. On the rare occasions she could not go with him and I went she would always check to see we had arrived there and back safely.

Being at home for so long meant that I could see the Senior Cat had proper meals, meals he liked, meals he wanted to eat. I did the best I could to provide good nutrition and I did what I could to make sure they were presented to him at set times during the day. We both knew when to expect things to happen. 

These things matter for the very elderly...and the Senior Cat was almost ninety-eight before he made the decision it was all too much for both of us. He was the one who made the decision about "going into care" and I still feel I let him down by not arguing too hard. Yes, I was tired. I had spent too long sleeping "with one ear open" like a mother of very young children. I doubt I will ever catch up on the lost sleep.

Once in the nursing home Middle Cat and I alternated days so he always had a visitor. He had other visitors too, far more than most people. We just thought of it as the right thing to do - and it was the right thing.

I am saying all that now not to say "how good of us". No, that had nothing to do with it. It was the right thing to do. It was what should have been done. It is what should happen to all older people. It doesn't.

This morning's paper has the preliminary stories to a campaign the paper says it will be running. Their campaign is called "Care Repair" and is supposedly going to deal with the "reforms" in aged care that were supposed to lead to more care and have actually (and not surprisingly) led to less. They are talking about those who are getting one shower a week at triple the previous cost. They are talking about a pack of seven "fruit smoothies" which retail for less than $20 and cost $120 when part of the package. Is this how we keep the elderly clean and provide them with the fruit they can no longer prepare for themselves? 

There are people out there making an enormous profit. They must be. I know employing people is expensive. There are all sorts of additional superannuation, insurance, leave loadings and so on to consider. Even with those things there are people making a big profit. It is why they are in the business of "providing care". The problem is  they are not providing "care" at all. They do not care. It is simply a business for them.

I wonder if I will reach the point of needing such "care". Will anyone care? It just makes me so glad I was in the position to make sure that the elderly person I loved above all others was given some care. I was not perfect, far from it, but at least I tried and Middle Cat tried. No, he was not "lucky". We just tried to give the Senior Cat what all elderly people should be given - loving care.   

The ban is "not working"

according to the latest reports. Under 16s are still accessing social media.

Yes, of course they are. Did you really expect them to voluntarily give up such a large part of their lives? 

Last Saturday I was in the supermarket. Ahead of me there was a parent doing the weekly shop. In the child seat of the trolley there was a three year old. He was behaving very well indeed. He was quiet. He was not fidgeting. He was not pulling things from the shelves. He was not making any noise. He was apparently completely absorbed in playing a game. 

Not a problem? Yes, a big problem. It was a computer game. It was rewarding him each time he clicked on the "right" answer. It may have seemed like fun to him but it was teaching him to become addicted to such things. 

It was nice for his parent. They had a nice, quiet, well behaved child while they managed to get yet one more of the weekend chores out of the way. There was no attempt at all to communicate with the child or involve them in the food being bought or how it might be used.  It might be that the parent really did not have time to involve the child but it is much more likely that the parent simply did not see it as important. Their child was being "good" and that mattered more. 

Is it any wonder though that children grow up believing this is normal. that this is how you get entertained? Is it any wonder that they are addicted to the screen for entertainment? Should it surprise us that unless school based learning provides at least something approaching that level of entertainment then it is considered "boring"? 

Of course "Big Tech" will provide this sort of material. There is a lot of money to be made here but there is also a huge demand for it. It is not a demand driven solely by the companies providing it. It is also driven by parents who want their children to be entertained the easy way. The "oh, but that game is an educational one" is an excuse which is far too easy to use.  No, it is not "educational". It may teach something but at what cost? 

It is time to stop trying to make "Big Tech" entirely responsible for screen addiction. The addiction begins early and with the choices parents make for their children. They need to see it the way they would see alcohol and tobacco. Parents are making available something just as addictive and potentially dangerous. It is their responsibility first. 

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.