Having lived in York for almost eight years now, I consider myself as a northerner by adoption. My pronunciations of 'grass' and 'class' are faultless, I like chips and gravy, I talk disparagingly about soft southerners who panic at the merest sprinkling of snow. But there's one supposedly northern trait I can't quite accept.
As my job involves answering phone calls, I come across this quite a lot. And that is probably part of the problem, since on the phone it's difficult to judge if someone is being patronising or just friendly. Especially when they have a heavy accent (Yorkshire is fine, and I'm getting the hang of the varieties of the Newcastle/ Durham area, but sometimes it's just too much.). Can you tell what it is yet?
It's the northern tendency to describe the person they're talking to as 'luv' or similar.
I've heard this tendency described (by both southerners and northerners) as 'endearing' and 'friendly' and I'm sure that much of the time that's how it is intended. The trouble is, most of the people describing it in that way are male. If you're a young female and are being described as 'darling' by someone who is older and acts as if he's incredibly superior to you, it's not quite the same as when a middle aged lady is helpful in a shop. I don't mind the latter kind. What I object to is when the speaker is being partonising. I got called 'darling' about seven times in the course of a minute long phone call yesterday. If that's friendlyness, it's excessive to the point of creepy when it's from a man I don't know.
It's worse if it's at work. I have to be polite, which is seen as encouraging. I can't challenge patronising behaviour. I can't even report it to senior staff- what can I report? A client was overly friendly? I felt uncomfortable? I'd just get told to grow up/ calm down, unless it was serious enough to claim sexual harrassment- and it's not, really. Sometimes it's genuine friendliness which I may have just misinterpreted, sometimes the person patronising might not be aware of how they're coming across.
But sometimes it is genuinely patronising. Perhaps it's less of a northern thing, and more of a class thing. Because I am a receptionist, typically a low skilled and low paid job. A lot of our clients are people who are pretty well off- business owners, professionals. And although by no means universally, some people do seem to regard me and people like me as unworthy of equal treatment. Class may not be determined by birth, but it is often, on an every day level, determined by money.
Showing posts with label life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label life. Show all posts
Friday, 26 August 2011
Monday, 18 July 2011
What the Dickens!
Laptop problems a couple of weekends ago led to me actually settling down to read a book- Charles Dickens' Nicholas Nickleby, to be precise. Dickens has a wonderful way of describing what life was like for the Victorian poor, of describing what it was like to scrape a living in any way you could. Even those with what we would think of as decent office jobs were often still despearately poor and at the mercy of their masters- Bob Cratchit, for example. Being able to save up for the future was as much of an impossible dream as it is for many today, with every penny needed to pay the rent and keep the household fed, clothed and warm. A single incident outside a person's control- illness, a rise in prices, loosing your job- could drop an entire family from 'getting on all right' into poverty at a moment's notice, and there was no safety net of the welfare state.
Any of that sound familiar? It did to me. As I was reading I kept thinking how little some things have changed. Low paid employees (the retail and service sector today as much as office and manufacturing) are still at the mercy of their employees, particularly temporary or part time workers. Often rules supposedly imposed for the good of employees aren't enforced- even the minimum wage- as employers today complain about employee rights stifling business growth. Well, call me a radical, but I can't help but think that if you can't afford to pay decent wages to your employees and treat them as human beings rather than robots, your business probably has other problems. With plans afoot to refuse legal aid for employment matters the situation isn't likely to get much better. Perhaps we need reminding why some of these laws were brought in.
While reading I kept wondering what Dickens would have written about had he been writing today. Would Fagin's gang have been drug dealers in inner city estates? What would he have had to say about Coketown's post-industrial decline? Would Paris be replaced in A Tale of Two cities by Tripoli, or Kabul, or Cairo?
One thing he wouldn't have had to change is the unpleasant portrayal of bankers and money-lenders. Nicholas Nickleby even has a cameo by a corrupt MP! Unfortunately some things do not change. But sometimes I think we find it hard to accept how little change has been made in some areas. We can accept poverty in past, or far away in Africa. But the statistics that show how many children in this country, in 2011 are living in poverty are too hard to handle. We categorise all those without jobs, for whatever reason, as 'lazy dole scum' and think that all those who are homeless are to blame for their plight.
But today, like in the nineteenth century, it can take very little for a seemingly comfortable family- or individual*- to find themselves in real difficulty- for food, for heating (a BBC report last week said that a fifth of households in Britain are affected by fuel poverty, and costs are still rising) and for accommodation. Selling off council houses was great for the families that could buy them, but no so great for their children who now have little access to affordable housing.
This wasn't intended as rant, merely a reflection on what a modern Dickens would be writing about today. I wonder if there is anyone writing with the same knowledge and ability to evoke the world of the poor as completely as he did? Given our cynicism today it would be quite a challenge to make critics understand what that world is really like, and to stop them in their calls to tear apart the safety net of the welfare state.
Unfortunately, whereas Dickens' characters all seem to end up at least comfortably off- due to mysterious benefactors, jovial philanthropists, rich relations' wills or just hard work and good luck; many people today are still hoping, like Mr Micawber in David Copperfield, for something to turn up.
Personally, I would love bump into some benevolent benefactor in the street, who would decide to give me a good job and ensure the people around me got the help and security they need. Unfortunately that's still in the realm of fiction.
* Individuals are actually often worse off. Without legal dependents, and still classed as 'young,' if I were to loose my job and accommodation I'd be a very low priority for help from the overstretched local authority. And to anyone who says that's what housing benefit is for, that really only covers rent (for a single room) if you're lucky. Deposits, bills etc are another matter. Not to mention getting a landlord who's willing to take you.
Any of that sound familiar? It did to me. As I was reading I kept thinking how little some things have changed. Low paid employees (the retail and service sector today as much as office and manufacturing) are still at the mercy of their employees, particularly temporary or part time workers. Often rules supposedly imposed for the good of employees aren't enforced- even the minimum wage- as employers today complain about employee rights stifling business growth. Well, call me a radical, but I can't help but think that if you can't afford to pay decent wages to your employees and treat them as human beings rather than robots, your business probably has other problems. With plans afoot to refuse legal aid for employment matters the situation isn't likely to get much better. Perhaps we need reminding why some of these laws were brought in.
While reading I kept wondering what Dickens would have written about had he been writing today. Would Fagin's gang have been drug dealers in inner city estates? What would he have had to say about Coketown's post-industrial decline? Would Paris be replaced in A Tale of Two cities by Tripoli, or Kabul, or Cairo?
One thing he wouldn't have had to change is the unpleasant portrayal of bankers and money-lenders. Nicholas Nickleby even has a cameo by a corrupt MP! Unfortunately some things do not change. But sometimes I think we find it hard to accept how little change has been made in some areas. We can accept poverty in past, or far away in Africa. But the statistics that show how many children in this country, in 2011 are living in poverty are too hard to handle. We categorise all those without jobs, for whatever reason, as 'lazy dole scum' and think that all those who are homeless are to blame for their plight.
But today, like in the nineteenth century, it can take very little for a seemingly comfortable family- or individual*- to find themselves in real difficulty- for food, for heating (a BBC report last week said that a fifth of households in Britain are affected by fuel poverty, and costs are still rising) and for accommodation. Selling off council houses was great for the families that could buy them, but no so great for their children who now have little access to affordable housing.
This wasn't intended as rant, merely a reflection on what a modern Dickens would be writing about today. I wonder if there is anyone writing with the same knowledge and ability to evoke the world of the poor as completely as he did? Given our cynicism today it would be quite a challenge to make critics understand what that world is really like, and to stop them in their calls to tear apart the safety net of the welfare state.
Unfortunately, whereas Dickens' characters all seem to end up at least comfortably off- due to mysterious benefactors, jovial philanthropists, rich relations' wills or just hard work and good luck; many people today are still hoping, like Mr Micawber in David Copperfield, for something to turn up.
Personally, I would love bump into some benevolent benefactor in the street, who would decide to give me a good job and ensure the people around me got the help and security they need. Unfortunately that's still in the realm of fiction.
* Individuals are actually often worse off. Without legal dependents, and still classed as 'young,' if I were to loose my job and accommodation I'd be a very low priority for help from the overstretched local authority. And to anyone who says that's what housing benefit is for, that really only covers rent (for a single room) if you're lucky. Deposits, bills etc are another matter. Not to mention getting a landlord who's willing to take you.
Friday, 18 February 2011
Reflections on 'the outsider'
I love my local library. (Yes, we still have a library, although before long it won't have any staff.) There was an exhibition there recently about York's refugee committe in the early to mid 20th century. It was fascinating reading about the help given to refugees fleeing from Nazi Germany in the 1930's, about factory workers who couldn't have been paid all that much themselves contributing a few pence a week to pay for a child evacuated from Germany to be cared for and educated.
It made me wonder whether society's reaction today would be towards a similar crisis. So often refugees, asylum seekers, illegal immigrants and legal migrant workers are all lumped together by the tabloid press as a seething mass of people 'coming over here taking our jobs and our houses and using our services.' It can be hard to separate the different groups and the different issues.
Today, those who come here seeking safety from persecution or violence in their homelands face many difficulties once they manage to get here, from official forms and interviews to surviving on meagre resources in a land where they may not speak the language or know anyone, and where often the public are unwelcoming. Despite the coalition government's pledge to end child detention for asylum seekers, too little has been done so far. I wonder what the factory workers who helped pay for German children's keep would make of Yarl's Wood detention centre?
But one thing that encourages me when I read stories about refugees and asylum seekers is how often a church is involved, how often it is church members leading the fight against deportation for families and individuals who have been failed by the system.
All through the Old Testament God encourages his people to care for the 'outsiders' living amongst them. Although it's easy to loose sight of this amongst the passages commanding his people not to intermarry with the surrounding tribes (in an attempt to stop them drifting into worshipping the false gods of those tribes) there were always non-Israelites living amongst God's people. Some, like the Moabite woman Ruth, even became ancestors of King David and ultimately of Jesus Christ. Jesus himself showed his concern for those who were considered 'outsiders' in his society. So it seems to me only right that the church should be active on behalf of those 'outsiders' to our society.
After all, if you had to leave Britain and ended up in a strange country, with no friends, little money and without knowing the language, wouldn't you hope someone would help you?
It made me wonder whether society's reaction today would be towards a similar crisis. So often refugees, asylum seekers, illegal immigrants and legal migrant workers are all lumped together by the tabloid press as a seething mass of people 'coming over here taking our jobs and our houses and using our services.' It can be hard to separate the different groups and the different issues.
Today, those who come here seeking safety from persecution or violence in their homelands face many difficulties once they manage to get here, from official forms and interviews to surviving on meagre resources in a land where they may not speak the language or know anyone, and where often the public are unwelcoming. Despite the coalition government's pledge to end child detention for asylum seekers, too little has been done so far. I wonder what the factory workers who helped pay for German children's keep would make of Yarl's Wood detention centre?
But one thing that encourages me when I read stories about refugees and asylum seekers is how often a church is involved, how often it is church members leading the fight against deportation for families and individuals who have been failed by the system.
All through the Old Testament God encourages his people to care for the 'outsiders' living amongst them. Although it's easy to loose sight of this amongst the passages commanding his people not to intermarry with the surrounding tribes (in an attempt to stop them drifting into worshipping the false gods of those tribes) there were always non-Israelites living amongst God's people. Some, like the Moabite woman Ruth, even became ancestors of King David and ultimately of Jesus Christ. Jesus himself showed his concern for those who were considered 'outsiders' in his society. So it seems to me only right that the church should be active on behalf of those 'outsiders' to our society.
After all, if you had to leave Britain and ended up in a strange country, with no friends, little money and without knowing the language, wouldn't you hope someone would help you?
Tuesday, 5 October 2010
Can I take a moment of your time?
I really haven't posted enough lately. I have been busy with many things, none of them fitting the both categories of a) interesting and b) suitable to blog about quickly. So instead here's a quick reflection on something else.
It may just be my imagination, or a local or seasonal trend, but I think there have been more charity 'salespeople' about recently. By salespeople I mean those people with clipboards who try to grab you in the street and talk at you until you give them money, or who go door-to-door doing the same thing. The RSPCA have been particularly active in the area where I live lately. Perhaps it's due to a downturn in donations due to the recession, or capitalising on public sympathy in the wake of the 'cat in a bin' news story.
While I have every sympathy with charities (often very good causes) trying to encourage donations, I find these kind of activities quite annoying. I don't want to be made to feel guilty for not giving money to sick rabbits when I'm in the middle of cooking tea or going to work. Often the people who try to talk to you in the street adopt the technique (at least with younger people like me) of trying to mildly flirt with you to get your attention. The (young) male canvassers aim for the women, the women for men. I wouldn't feel comfortable with that behaviour from a stranger normally, why should it encourage me to talk about charitable giving? But often it's hard to get them to take 'no' for an answer, and they make you feel rude for ignoring them.
I do give to charity. But I like to choose for myself, not to be pressured into it by strangers on my doorstep or trying to distract me when I'm in a hurry. I'm sure their causes are very worthy ones, but so are many others. Which I give to is my choice, and pressure is going to make me less likely to give, not more. There's a difficult balance to be achieved, from the charity's point of view, because while too much nagging can put people off; without sufficient publicity people won't know about the charity or it's cause, and won't give either.
It struck me that actually there's an analogy to be drawn with the way the church- or parts of it- often do evangelism. Perhaps for some people the pushy, in-your-face style of proclaiming the gospel and forcing people to listen to it whether they like it or not works, as it must do for some charities and their donors. I imagine, though, most people have a similar reaction to me with the charity canvassers. That's what I've gathered over years of trying to talk to friends about faith. Being continually badgered about something when you don't want to be makes you less inclined to think about it, creates a resentment that then needs more work to be overcome.
That's not to say we shouldn't be talking about our faith, shouldn't be making the gospel public. But Jesus, we're told, doesn't force his way in to people's lives. He wants to be invited. We can't force people to open their doors to him, we can only encourage them to invite him in. And constant nagging doesn't do that. It's a difficult balance.
It may just be my imagination, or a local or seasonal trend, but I think there have been more charity 'salespeople' about recently. By salespeople I mean those people with clipboards who try to grab you in the street and talk at you until you give them money, or who go door-to-door doing the same thing. The RSPCA have been particularly active in the area where I live lately. Perhaps it's due to a downturn in donations due to the recession, or capitalising on public sympathy in the wake of the 'cat in a bin' news story.
While I have every sympathy with charities (often very good causes) trying to encourage donations, I find these kind of activities quite annoying. I don't want to be made to feel guilty for not giving money to sick rabbits when I'm in the middle of cooking tea or going to work. Often the people who try to talk to you in the street adopt the technique (at least with younger people like me) of trying to mildly flirt with you to get your attention. The (young) male canvassers aim for the women, the women for men. I wouldn't feel comfortable with that behaviour from a stranger normally, why should it encourage me to talk about charitable giving? But often it's hard to get them to take 'no' for an answer, and they make you feel rude for ignoring them.
I do give to charity. But I like to choose for myself, not to be pressured into it by strangers on my doorstep or trying to distract me when I'm in a hurry. I'm sure their causes are very worthy ones, but so are many others. Which I give to is my choice, and pressure is going to make me less likely to give, not more. There's a difficult balance to be achieved, from the charity's point of view, because while too much nagging can put people off; without sufficient publicity people won't know about the charity or it's cause, and won't give either.
It struck me that actually there's an analogy to be drawn with the way the church- or parts of it- often do evangelism. Perhaps for some people the pushy, in-your-face style of proclaiming the gospel and forcing people to listen to it whether they like it or not works, as it must do for some charities and their donors. I imagine, though, most people have a similar reaction to me with the charity canvassers. That's what I've gathered over years of trying to talk to friends about faith. Being continually badgered about something when you don't want to be makes you less inclined to think about it, creates a resentment that then needs more work to be overcome.
That's not to say we shouldn't be talking about our faith, shouldn't be making the gospel public. But Jesus, we're told, doesn't force his way in to people's lives. He wants to be invited. We can't force people to open their doors to him, we can only encourage them to invite him in. And constant nagging doesn't do that. It's a difficult balance.
Thursday, 26 August 2010
House and home
Recently the topic of affordable housing has been discussed in the media. With a chronic shortage of this, and with any help that is given going (rightly, I suppose) to those worst off, it's those people who are in the middle who are going to struggle most to get on the property ladder. By in the middle I don't necessarily mean 'middle class.' I mean those people who earn enough to live on, but not enough to save up and buy. This will probably include people we think of as middle class today; office workers, even nurses and teachers.
So it seems that in the future more people will have to rent, either alone or with friends. Even buying with friends might become an option. I found it interesting that the recent BBC series Sherlock showed two young men sharing a flat, for financial reasons, something that people often don't quite 'get.' Of course, there was a recurring theme that half the people they met would assume that they were sharing because they were a couple. I've encountered that myself, even when I've been sharing with 2 or 3 people!
But is it necessarily a bad thing that fewer people will be homeowners? Perhaps not, in many countries it's more usual to rent than to buy. But as commentators have said, certain things would need to change if renting were to become more popular. As I've written about before, tenants are often at a disadvantage compared to homeowners. It's unlikely many landlords will feel the need to invest in extra energy efficiency measures like insulation or solar pannels as they will derive little personal benefit. The same goes for decoration and non-essential repairs and upgrades. It's understandable, especially if you have long term tenants and haven't got to attract new ones. Perhaps landlords need to be given some incentive to do this, perhaps tenants need to be able to badger their landlords more. Perhaps if people are living in rented property for longer, rather than seeing it as temporary, they need to have more opportunity to do work (decoration, refurbishment) themselves. To be able to feel settled, to make a place their own.
To make living in rented property attractive, these aren't the only changes that would need to take place. Society often seems to take it for granted that 'proper' adults own their own home, and share it only with a partner. Why? As a result, most official paperwork and benefits are based around each household being occupied only as a single unit. Council tax, for example, is based on the incomes of two adults living in each house leading to some downright unfair effects (but that's a whole other rant). Even government research surveys find it hard to cope with two or more non-related, non-partners, sharing a home, and surely that will become more normal. Officialdom needs to recognise that the two adult (and two income) per household model does not reflect all households.
So it seems that in the future more people will have to rent, either alone or with friends. Even buying with friends might become an option. I found it interesting that the recent BBC series Sherlock showed two young men sharing a flat, for financial reasons, something that people often don't quite 'get.' Of course, there was a recurring theme that half the people they met would assume that they were sharing because they were a couple. I've encountered that myself, even when I've been sharing with 2 or 3 people!
But is it necessarily a bad thing that fewer people will be homeowners? Perhaps not, in many countries it's more usual to rent than to buy. But as commentators have said, certain things would need to change if renting were to become more popular. As I've written about before, tenants are often at a disadvantage compared to homeowners. It's unlikely many landlords will feel the need to invest in extra energy efficiency measures like insulation or solar pannels as they will derive little personal benefit. The same goes for decoration and non-essential repairs and upgrades. It's understandable, especially if you have long term tenants and haven't got to attract new ones. Perhaps landlords need to be given some incentive to do this, perhaps tenants need to be able to badger their landlords more. Perhaps if people are living in rented property for longer, rather than seeing it as temporary, they need to have more opportunity to do work (decoration, refurbishment) themselves. To be able to feel settled, to make a place their own.
To make living in rented property attractive, these aren't the only changes that would need to take place. Society often seems to take it for granted that 'proper' adults own their own home, and share it only with a partner. Why? As a result, most official paperwork and benefits are based around each household being occupied only as a single unit. Council tax, for example, is based on the incomes of two adults living in each house leading to some downright unfair effects (but that's a whole other rant). Even government research surveys find it hard to cope with two or more non-related, non-partners, sharing a home, and surely that will become more normal. Officialdom needs to recognise that the two adult (and two income) per household model does not reflect all households.
There is a danger that if property becomes concentrated in the hands of a rich minority then theose worse off will have little choice but to accept lower standards. That's something to be careful about. And there's the pension situation: many people living on pensions today can afford to do so (just) because they own their own homes and don't have to pay rent. If fewer pensioners in the future own their own homes, and have to pay rent from ever-decreasing pensions, that's something that needs to be addressed- sooner rather than later. But will it- or any of these concerns? Or is too much like joined-up, long term thinking for governments which seem to only deal with the immediate problem?
Monday, 2 August 2010
A Modest Proposal
You know, I've had an idea. I think it could solve a lot of the country's problems, from crime to welfare to NHS spending. It's building on the fine traditions of this country, and should really go a long way towards 'fixing' the broken society we live in (or should that be big society? Or big broken society, or broken big society? Something like that, anyway.).
I suggest that every young person between the ages of eighteen and twenty five is locked up. Possibly even sixteen to thirty. This is the age group that is responsible for so many of the country's problems- most crime: violence, drunkenness and disorderliness, damage to property, drug misuse, muggings, theft, is committed by this age group. It's also the age group who are now finding it almost impossible to get jobs, as they don't have the experience to compete with adults with five or ten years work experience in the the current market, when many jobs have dozens of applicants. If every person in this age group were to be imprisoned, not only would crime figures fall dramatically (and along with them the cost of funding the criminal justice system) but also cut spending on the dole (Jobseekers' Allowance) and on other welfare benefits, such as housing. It would reduce the pressure on the job market, and help the country out of depression by providing full employment for everyone else.
Speaking of housing, with the young out of the housing market, the country's housing shortage would be solved. And by keeping young men and women separate except under close supervision pregnancies outside a stable family environment could be entirely eliminated, which would help again with welfare payments and also with overpopulation. And without students, student debt would also be abolished, and universities could be used for their proper purpose- researched focused on industry profits, and as conference venues. A whole generation could be freed from growing up with the burden of debt, teaching them a valuable lesson about managing finances.
Some will argue that the whole scheme would be probibitively expensive, but I believe it could even be profit making. The young can be made to contribute to the society which has cared for them by doing good old-fashioned work, growing food which could then be sold, for example. They could serve (without pay, obviously) in a variety of armed forces roles, and work in the community to aid local projects. Housing and feed costs need be minimal, as only basic buildings will be needed for such young, robust people. Frugal living and exercise will help improve their overall health- saving future NHS spending.
Some may say this is a bit too radical for the country to take at the moment. Very well, start by just locking up the men, and see the vast difference it makes to the country. Keep the women out of it for the moment. Perhaps exceptions could be made for the children of the well-off, or the highly intelligent. And one last benefit to the country- it would allow for strict training of decent sports teams, away from all distractions or scandals. The young could help build the Olympic venues, keeping down labour costs so the games might actually be under budget. One day, we might even win the football World Cup!
Ok, I hope you noticed that was something of a joke. I'm not sure I can go so far as to claim it's satire. The title of this post comes from Jonathan Swift's 1729 essay advocating solving Irish famine problems by eating babies, which should give you a clue. I'm not actually advocating this- far from it- and I have no proof for any of the 'facts' stated above. They're entirely based on prejudice. But really, from the things some politicians and media outlets say, you can't help but think that young people can't do anything right, that they are to blame for all of society's problems, and society would be better off without them. It wouldn't take many alterations (replace imprisonment with 'National Service' or 'national volunteer squad/ training scheme') before someone will say that the arguments above have something in them. In fact, the first hints have already been dropped by Cameron et al for a national volunteer scheme, which while having certain benefits in giving young people skills and experiences, is still probably at heart a way of keeping them off the dole and out of the unemployment statistics. Instead of treating them as lazy ingnorants or mere statistics, why can't we value the young, and perhaps trust them a bit more?
And no, I don't have a cure-all idea for solving that or any of the country's problems. I don't think there is one. Sorry to disappoint you.
I suggest that every young person between the ages of eighteen and twenty five is locked up. Possibly even sixteen to thirty. This is the age group that is responsible for so many of the country's problems- most crime: violence, drunkenness and disorderliness, damage to property, drug misuse, muggings, theft, is committed by this age group. It's also the age group who are now finding it almost impossible to get jobs, as they don't have the experience to compete with adults with five or ten years work experience in the the current market, when many jobs have dozens of applicants. If every person in this age group were to be imprisoned, not only would crime figures fall dramatically (and along with them the cost of funding the criminal justice system) but also cut spending on the dole (Jobseekers' Allowance) and on other welfare benefits, such as housing. It would reduce the pressure on the job market, and help the country out of depression by providing full employment for everyone else.
Speaking of housing, with the young out of the housing market, the country's housing shortage would be solved. And by keeping young men and women separate except under close supervision pregnancies outside a stable family environment could be entirely eliminated, which would help again with welfare payments and also with overpopulation. And without students, student debt would also be abolished, and universities could be used for their proper purpose- researched focused on industry profits, and as conference venues. A whole generation could be freed from growing up with the burden of debt, teaching them a valuable lesson about managing finances.
Some will argue that the whole scheme would be probibitively expensive, but I believe it could even be profit making. The young can be made to contribute to the society which has cared for them by doing good old-fashioned work, growing food which could then be sold, for example. They could serve (without pay, obviously) in a variety of armed forces roles, and work in the community to aid local projects. Housing and feed costs need be minimal, as only basic buildings will be needed for such young, robust people. Frugal living and exercise will help improve their overall health- saving future NHS spending.
Some may say this is a bit too radical for the country to take at the moment. Very well, start by just locking up the men, and see the vast difference it makes to the country. Keep the women out of it for the moment. Perhaps exceptions could be made for the children of the well-off, or the highly intelligent. And one last benefit to the country- it would allow for strict training of decent sports teams, away from all distractions or scandals. The young could help build the Olympic venues, keeping down labour costs so the games might actually be under budget. One day, we might even win the football World Cup!
Ok, I hope you noticed that was something of a joke. I'm not sure I can go so far as to claim it's satire. The title of this post comes from Jonathan Swift's 1729 essay advocating solving Irish famine problems by eating babies, which should give you a clue. I'm not actually advocating this- far from it- and I have no proof for any of the 'facts' stated above. They're entirely based on prejudice. But really, from the things some politicians and media outlets say, you can't help but think that young people can't do anything right, that they are to blame for all of society's problems, and society would be better off without them. It wouldn't take many alterations (replace imprisonment with 'National Service' or 'national volunteer squad/ training scheme') before someone will say that the arguments above have something in them. In fact, the first hints have already been dropped by Cameron et al for a national volunteer scheme, which while having certain benefits in giving young people skills and experiences, is still probably at heart a way of keeping them off the dole and out of the unemployment statistics. Instead of treating them as lazy ingnorants or mere statistics, why can't we value the young, and perhaps trust them a bit more?
And no, I don't have a cure-all idea for solving that or any of the country's problems. I don't think there is one. Sorry to disappoint you.
Friday, 2 July 2010
What did possibly go wrong.
I said I'd let you know. What went wrong next was that a soloist had to drop out the day before the show due to illness. But we coped, reallocated some solos and cut others. The show went very well, at least from my point of view. This Saturday we're taking it 'on tour' to Leeds with a reduced cast, so let's hope all goes well!
It still remains to be seen whether the 'Japanese Play' has escaped its' curse- although one principal did manage to hurt his knee and develop tonsillitis...let's hope that's the end of it!
Aside from that, it's not been the best week or two, with work being unpleasant and making me feel useless and no good for anything- if I can't even do a good job at my current job, what hope do I have of being any use in the sort of job I feel God might be calling me to? But then why would he call me to something I couldn't do? That makes no sense.
Various Bible verses tell us that we need to rely on God for our strength. For example:
It still remains to be seen whether the 'Japanese Play' has escaped its' curse- although one principal did manage to hurt his knee and develop tonsillitis...let's hope that's the end of it!
Aside from that, it's not been the best week or two, with work being unpleasant and making me feel useless and no good for anything- if I can't even do a good job at my current job, what hope do I have of being any use in the sort of job I feel God might be calling me to? But then why would he call me to something I couldn't do? That makes no sense.
Various Bible verses tell us that we need to rely on God for our strength. For example:
Trust in the LORD with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding
and lean not on your own understanding
Proverbs 3, v5.
I guess that's something I needed to be reminded of. And something I need to do. God chooses to use his people to do his work, and he strengthens them as needed for his work. So I hope he will strengthen me, and be able to use me. Even though I don't feel that I'm worth using.
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
A hideous curse!
Well, I've been in shows which have had their fair share of catastrophies and hiccups, but at the moment I am beginning to wonder if there's some sort of curse lurking in York's Gilbert and Sullivan groups. Or worse, in me, since I'm a common factor in both. One group may be just about back on track, although from now on I'm calling the show named afte the Emperor of Japan the 'Japanese Play' as it seems to be the operetta equivalent of Shakespeare's Scottish Play, except that in this instance the curse attacks members of the directing team and committee. However, following three resignations, a directorial reappointment, two sets of recasting and and EGM, hopefully the music's now learnt, the theatre booked, the tickets on sale and we can get on with learning choreography- until the next problem!
But the university society seemed to be going so well, despite the university's apparent ambition to stop all performing societies from operating and generally make life difficult for students. This time it was actually the students' union, (I've come to understand that that term must be used ironically,) YUSU, that was causing the trouble. Stating that all societies must hire equipment from certain companies with whom YUSU has a contract sounds fine until you realise that this is a much higher cost than the sharing/ begging/ borrowing which most societies have to do to make ends meet.
But somehow we'd survived that, and even managed to get money from YUSU to pay for the cost of the problem they created. What could stop us now?
Room bookings, it appears. Last night's rehearsal room turned out to be double booked thanks to a glitch probably in the electronic system. Yet even this we turned to our advantage by squeezing into a music room to go over some of the music, delaying the run through of Act 1 that we were supposed to be doing until the other group had finished with our room. This meant that when we did get our proper room back, we were able to get all the way through Act 1 without stopping.
Well, that must be it. The rehearsal's over, nothing more could go wrong that day.
Then the musical director started choking and had to be taken to A&E, unable to breathe.
Over the years I've seen a lot of directors exhibit practically every documented symptom of stress, including dreaming that each member of the cast is killed in one way or another. But never have we come so close to any of them being actually unable to take part in the show. Apparently he's now fine, though, or at least he says so. So, the show(s) must go on!
What could possibly go wrong?
I'll let you know.
But the university society seemed to be going so well, despite the university's apparent ambition to stop all performing societies from operating and generally make life difficult for students. This time it was actually the students' union, (I've come to understand that that term must be used ironically,) YUSU, that was causing the trouble. Stating that all societies must hire equipment from certain companies with whom YUSU has a contract sounds fine until you realise that this is a much higher cost than the sharing/ begging/ borrowing which most societies have to do to make ends meet.
But somehow we'd survived that, and even managed to get money from YUSU to pay for the cost of the problem they created. What could stop us now?
Room bookings, it appears. Last night's rehearsal room turned out to be double booked thanks to a glitch probably in the electronic system. Yet even this we turned to our advantage by squeezing into a music room to go over some of the music, delaying the run through of Act 1 that we were supposed to be doing until the other group had finished with our room. This meant that when we did get our proper room back, we were able to get all the way through Act 1 without stopping.
Well, that must be it. The rehearsal's over, nothing more could go wrong that day.
Then the musical director started choking and had to be taken to A&E, unable to breathe.
Over the years I've seen a lot of directors exhibit practically every documented symptom of stress, including dreaming that each member of the cast is killed in one way or another. But never have we come so close to any of them being actually unable to take part in the show. Apparently he's now fine, though, or at least he says so. So, the show(s) must go on!
What could possibly go wrong?
I'll let you know.
Tuesday, 18 May 2010
A hopeless generation?
Our parents were told they could have it better than past generations. And they did. Technology and standards of living have increased dramatically in the last century, even the last sixty years. The effects on society have been enormous, and some more positive than others.
But in the last thirty or so years things were moving so fast that we borrowed to get more and more, both as a country and as individuals. Now we're left in a country that's deep in debt, but just as seriously a country with a high level of personal debt- huge mortgages, credit cards, loans, even student loans, with all problems, financial and stress related, this causes.
Even for those who've avoided debt as much as possible the dream of life continually improving seems unlikely. I know so many people who've graduated in the last few years and struggle to get even a low skilled job, let alone one requiring a degree. Perhaps the picture is skewed because of where I live, but youth unemployment is a rising political issue. As is the older generation who will need-and expect- increasing levels of expensive care, which my generation will have to pay for. Will we have it better than past generations? I doubt it.
And yet on TV we see people endlessly having fun, doing exciting things. Is it any wonder if we want to escape our dull, hopeless lives, to win fame, celebrity, and that we'll often go to extreme lengths such as humiliating ourselves in front of millions on X factor or Big Brother to get it? But even that is shallow.
The future used to seem shiny and exciting, a world of robot servants and hovercars and interstellar travel. Now we bitterly consider what a mess we've made of our own planet rather than thinking about colonising others. The future doesn't seem to contain much hope now. Certainly not the immediate future of cash-strapped Britain. Perhaps that's what we were hoping our politicians will deliver in this election- a reason to hope in the future. Perhaps it's too early to say whether that hope was entirely in vain.
So where are we to find our hope for the future? At this point I should go all Christian and give the answer; "in Christ." And it's true, of course. I do believe it. But that's not to disown responsibility for the future of planet Earth and its inhabitants. That hope in Christ has got to affect what we do on Earth, not just what will happen to us after death. Because of that hope, it's up to us, the people of Christ, to look at the world around us and work out how we can make it a better place, a place of hope.
But in the last thirty or so years things were moving so fast that we borrowed to get more and more, both as a country and as individuals. Now we're left in a country that's deep in debt, but just as seriously a country with a high level of personal debt- huge mortgages, credit cards, loans, even student loans, with all problems, financial and stress related, this causes.
Even for those who've avoided debt as much as possible the dream of life continually improving seems unlikely. I know so many people who've graduated in the last few years and struggle to get even a low skilled job, let alone one requiring a degree. Perhaps the picture is skewed because of where I live, but youth unemployment is a rising political issue. As is the older generation who will need-and expect- increasing levels of expensive care, which my generation will have to pay for. Will we have it better than past generations? I doubt it.
And yet on TV we see people endlessly having fun, doing exciting things. Is it any wonder if we want to escape our dull, hopeless lives, to win fame, celebrity, and that we'll often go to extreme lengths such as humiliating ourselves in front of millions on X factor or Big Brother to get it? But even that is shallow.
The future used to seem shiny and exciting, a world of robot servants and hovercars and interstellar travel. Now we bitterly consider what a mess we've made of our own planet rather than thinking about colonising others. The future doesn't seem to contain much hope now. Certainly not the immediate future of cash-strapped Britain. Perhaps that's what we were hoping our politicians will deliver in this election- a reason to hope in the future. Perhaps it's too early to say whether that hope was entirely in vain.
So where are we to find our hope for the future? At this point I should go all Christian and give the answer; "in Christ." And it's true, of course. I do believe it. But that's not to disown responsibility for the future of planet Earth and its inhabitants. That hope in Christ has got to affect what we do on Earth, not just what will happen to us after death. Because of that hope, it's up to us, the people of Christ, to look at the world around us and work out how we can make it a better place, a place of hope.
Wednesday, 12 May 2010
The modern day lion's den
Well, we have a new government. Actually, unlike many people I don't think it's taken all that long since the election, I know that in some other countries it can take much longer. And again unlike many people I think that since the election all the party leaders have acted properly, and come to a reasonable conclusion. Whether or not the system that got them there is fair is another matter, but at the moment it's the one we've got to use. While I would like to see a different system looked at, in this case I'm not sure it would have made a vast difference to the end result. While there aspects of this government's policy that I really don't like, I can see that it could have been much worse.
But for now we have a government that under the current system can claim legitimacy. Perhaps we don't like its' leaders, or its' policies. But there is one thing that we can and should do, whether we like the government or not, and that is pray. Pray that the politicians will have the best interests of the country at heart and will act for that motive, not for their own aggrandisement or enrichment.
Pray for Gordon Brown, stepping back from a difficult job and for his family, as they adjust to life outside number 10.
Pray for David Cameron, taking on the responsibilities of leading the country, and for his family, as they get used to living inside the goldfish bowl of 10 Downing Street. Pray for the new cabinet members and government ministers as they settle in to their new roles. Pray for Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems who probably weren't expecting as much to be taking their places round the cabinet table!
Pray that the parties can work together for the good of the people of this country and beyond. Pray for greater fairness of opportunity, in healthcare, in education, in employment. Pray for those who influence the media. Pray that the country will not get so caught up in fear of the future that they are unable to do anything in the present.
Searching biblegateway.com for references to government, the passage that struck me was from Daniel, where Daniel's opponents tried to find anything to use to smear him, but were unable to. Daniel 6 shows a court that's scarily reminiscent of modern politics. "Finally these men said, "We will never find any basis for charges against this man Daniel unless it has something to do with the law of his God." (Daniel 6 verse 5). Wouldn't it be great if we could say the same about our leaders? You'll call me naive, I'm sure, but let's pray that our politicians are more like Daniel, and less like the jealous satraps.
But for now we have a government that under the current system can claim legitimacy. Perhaps we don't like its' leaders, or its' policies. But there is one thing that we can and should do, whether we like the government or not, and that is pray. Pray that the politicians will have the best interests of the country at heart and will act for that motive, not for their own aggrandisement or enrichment.
Pray for Gordon Brown, stepping back from a difficult job and for his family, as they adjust to life outside number 10.
Pray for David Cameron, taking on the responsibilities of leading the country, and for his family, as they get used to living inside the goldfish bowl of 10 Downing Street. Pray for the new cabinet members and government ministers as they settle in to their new roles. Pray for Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems who probably weren't expecting as much to be taking their places round the cabinet table!
Pray that the parties can work together for the good of the people of this country and beyond. Pray for greater fairness of opportunity, in healthcare, in education, in employment. Pray for those who influence the media. Pray that the country will not get so caught up in fear of the future that they are unable to do anything in the present.
Searching biblegateway.com for references to government, the passage that struck me was from Daniel, where Daniel's opponents tried to find anything to use to smear him, but were unable to. Daniel 6 shows a court that's scarily reminiscent of modern politics. "Finally these men said, "We will never find any basis for charges against this man Daniel unless it has something to do with the law of his God." (Daniel 6 verse 5). Wouldn't it be great if we could say the same about our leaders? You'll call me naive, I'm sure, but let's pray that our politicians are more like Daniel, and less like the jealous satraps.
Thursday, 6 May 2010
Election fever
Finally, it's polling day. It does seem to have taken a long time to get here, especially when you consider how little we have actually learnt in the last couple of weeks. There haven't been any really radical changes since the first debate when everyone suddenly realised that the Lib Dems had a leader and that perhaps they should pay some attention to him. Since them nothing much seems to have changed. We've known pretty much what all the parties were going to say for some time (apart perhaps from Cameron's 'Big society' but even that is just giving a name to things we've heard about before. Even Bigotgate hasn't really told us anything we don't know.
But somehow today's still a bit special. An election is An Event. A national event. It's rather twee to say that it brings the nation together, but in a way it does. Pretty much everyone you speak to, in shops, in the street, at work, has something to say on the subject. We British are experts at grumbling, so often it's to complain about this or that or all parties or politicians. But at least it's engagement with the political process.
I went to vote about midday, and was glad to see that the polling station was busier by far at the same time of day than it was last year for the European elections or for the local elections a year or two before. Perhaps because it's looking close, the turnout for this election will be higher than in recent years, higher than the last couple of general elections. That perhaps is something positive to take away from this election, whoever wins; that people have been more, even if only a bit more, engaged with politics this time round. Cynics might say this is all down to the 'X-factor' TV debates, and I don't doubt they have had an effect. But even if people are only voting because they think Leader A looks more friendly than Leader B, they're voting, they're taking part, taking responsibility for the givernment of their country. Of course I'd much, much rather they listened to what the leaders were saying, looked at their policies and considered their values. But I'd rather they took some responsibility for their future than none at all, even if I disagree with their choice. That's democracy. Those who can't be bothered to vote* don't have the right to complain for the next five years!
So if you haven't yet and you can, go and vote. For whoever (although please, not the far right!) you think will be best for the country. A century ago I wouldn't have been able to vote- I hope I'd have been chaining myself to railings outside as a protest! Two centuries ago even a lot of men wouldn't have been able to vote due to property qualifications. In many countries people are still denied a say in the government that runs their lives and in others the elections are no more than a sham (think of conflict in Zimbabwe and Kenya over the last few years). However bad and corrupt you may think our politicians are, really we are very very fortunate. Let's show that we don't take it for granted!
*I don't include those who for a reason that's not their fault can't vote. Failing to bother to check you're registered probably is your own fault, though, it's not as if you haven't had enough warning!
But somehow today's still a bit special. An election is An Event. A national event. It's rather twee to say that it brings the nation together, but in a way it does. Pretty much everyone you speak to, in shops, in the street, at work, has something to say on the subject. We British are experts at grumbling, so often it's to complain about this or that or all parties or politicians. But at least it's engagement with the political process.
I went to vote about midday, and was glad to see that the polling station was busier by far at the same time of day than it was last year for the European elections or for the local elections a year or two before. Perhaps because it's looking close, the turnout for this election will be higher than in recent years, higher than the last couple of general elections. That perhaps is something positive to take away from this election, whoever wins; that people have been more, even if only a bit more, engaged with politics this time round. Cynics might say this is all down to the 'X-factor' TV debates, and I don't doubt they have had an effect. But even if people are only voting because they think Leader A looks more friendly than Leader B, they're voting, they're taking part, taking responsibility for the givernment of their country. Of course I'd much, much rather they listened to what the leaders were saying, looked at their policies and considered their values. But I'd rather they took some responsibility for their future than none at all, even if I disagree with their choice. That's democracy. Those who can't be bothered to vote* don't have the right to complain for the next five years!
So if you haven't yet and you can, go and vote. For whoever (although please, not the far right!) you think will be best for the country. A century ago I wouldn't have been able to vote- I hope I'd have been chaining myself to railings outside as a protest! Two centuries ago even a lot of men wouldn't have been able to vote due to property qualifications. In many countries people are still denied a say in the government that runs their lives and in others the elections are no more than a sham (think of conflict in Zimbabwe and Kenya over the last few years). However bad and corrupt you may think our politicians are, really we are very very fortunate. Let's show that we don't take it for granted!
*I don't include those who for a reason that's not their fault can't vote. Failing to bother to check you're registered probably is your own fault, though, it's not as if you haven't had enough warning!
Wednesday, 14 April 2010
Growing up
It appears I am actually, despite all appearances, (and some people's opinions) growing up. Recently I was getting worried that I might be turning into my father, since I'd noticed some of his traits and temprament in myself. Not a good thing. I'm hoping some recent events were mostly a biproduct of being stressed and not an actual trend towards getting angry when things didn't go right.
And yet now it seems I was wrong. I actually appear to be turning into my mother. Sometimes I sound like her, talk about the same things, laugh like her, even sometimes look like her or use her expressions. For ages it's been a joke amongst some of my friends that I'm something of a parent (ever since I started counting people when we were in Edinburgh a few years ago...). It probably has something to do with me almost invariably being the one who notices when the house is low on toilet roll, or a bill needs paying; and always having a tissue or safety pin.
For the last two or three years I've been going through what my friends and I call 'the marriage phase' where pretty much everyone I knew at uni or from church was getting married. Nowadays I struggle to think of couples among my friends who've been together more than a couple of months and who aren't married or engaged. Not that this is a bad thing at all, it's just one of those phases.
But it seems this phase is beginning to come to an end. So far there's only four or so weddings of couples I know happening this year. It's moving on. The 'baby phase' is beginning. Several couples, mostly two or three years older than me but including one where the wife is younger than me, are having or have had their first child this year.
It's interesting to observe. It's even more interesting to see on Facebook that people from my year at secondary school have children who are now several years old. And yet at least one friend is still surprised by the youth of the brides/grooms/parents who are a year or two older than me. Is there an 'average' age for these things? My circle of friends is affected by the number of Christians (especially of the evangelical, no sex outside marriage, sort) and perhaps this distorts the numbers in favour of early marriage. But the age of the couple leaving full time education seems to affect this too, as many of those I knew who left school at 16 or 18 are already parents compared to those who I know from university.
Perceptions of the family, and therefore the ages of each stage have changed throughout history. What 'family' can be said to mean now is an endless debate. I was amused to realise that according to official surveys and suchlike, I would probably be considered the head of my 'household' as the main income earner. Is that why I seem to be taking on the role of a parent? I doubt it- I think it's just the curse of being well organised!
So do I mind that I'm turning into my mother? Not really. It seems I'm destined to 'mother' the people around me, to care about them and worry about them, to try to help and look after them. But it could be worse!
And yet now it seems I was wrong. I actually appear to be turning into my mother. Sometimes I sound like her, talk about the same things, laugh like her, even sometimes look like her or use her expressions. For ages it's been a joke amongst some of my friends that I'm something of a parent (ever since I started counting people when we were in Edinburgh a few years ago...). It probably has something to do with me almost invariably being the one who notices when the house is low on toilet roll, or a bill needs paying; and always having a tissue or safety pin.
For the last two or three years I've been going through what my friends and I call 'the marriage phase' where pretty much everyone I knew at uni or from church was getting married. Nowadays I struggle to think of couples among my friends who've been together more than a couple of months and who aren't married or engaged. Not that this is a bad thing at all, it's just one of those phases.
But it seems this phase is beginning to come to an end. So far there's only four or so weddings of couples I know happening this year. It's moving on. The 'baby phase' is beginning. Several couples, mostly two or three years older than me but including one where the wife is younger than me, are having or have had their first child this year.
It's interesting to observe. It's even more interesting to see on Facebook that people from my year at secondary school have children who are now several years old. And yet at least one friend is still surprised by the youth of the brides/grooms/parents who are a year or two older than me. Is there an 'average' age for these things? My circle of friends is affected by the number of Christians (especially of the evangelical, no sex outside marriage, sort) and perhaps this distorts the numbers in favour of early marriage. But the age of the couple leaving full time education seems to affect this too, as many of those I knew who left school at 16 or 18 are already parents compared to those who I know from university.
Perceptions of the family, and therefore the ages of each stage have changed throughout history. What 'family' can be said to mean now is an endless debate. I was amused to realise that according to official surveys and suchlike, I would probably be considered the head of my 'household' as the main income earner. Is that why I seem to be taking on the role of a parent? I doubt it- I think it's just the curse of being well organised!
So do I mind that I'm turning into my mother? Not really. It seems I'm destined to 'mother' the people around me, to care about them and worry about them, to try to help and look after them. But it could be worse!
Friday, 9 April 2010
Appraisal time
It's that time of year again- appraisals month at work. Everyone gets given a sheet of questions to think about and answer, then you have an interview with someone more senior and discuss it and any concerns they have with you. I know I shouldn't complain too much, I think it's a healthy thing to do, but at the same time it can be difficult and awkward. I struggle to work out how to answer the questions without offending anyone, or making it sound like I'm lazy (or that I'm too keen) without actually lying. Then they try and set targets. Do you know how hard it is to set an identifiable target for a receptionist without getting really petty?
To cheer me up, here are some of the pre-appraisal questions, and what I might like to answer...
Which part of the job interests you most?
Umm...payday? The internet?
Which part interests you least?
The actual work (when there is any).
Or possibly answering these questionnaires.
How do you feel you have performed in the last year?
Well, a hundred or so blog posts, a 60,000+ word story (and some other writings), a lot of minutes and business connected with running a G&S society isn't bad for a year's work, I guess. Oh, you mean actual office activities. Umm...ok I guess.
Which areas of your job are you unclear about?
Why you continually don't give me anything else to do, even when I've asked. Surely there must be something? Or are you really happy just to pay me to sit here and twiddle my thumbs?
Do you posess skills, knowlegdge or experience acquired elsewhere of which we do not make full use?
Yes. Do you really want a list? I have a degree, for starters. I can type with more than two fingers, and know how to use email. I know how to clean a bathroom, which is more than the current cleaner does...Could I sing to entertain clients in the waiting room? Or give minature lectures on European History?
Does your job description properly describe your duties and responsibilities?
Well, yes. We only revieved it six months ago. But put together they take up less than a quarter of the time I'm at work for.
Do you feel that you could take on other responsibilities?
What's the point in asking me this? I said yes the last two times I did this form, and you haven't given me any. I'd like a chance to learn some new skills or develop the ones I have so I stand some chance of getting another job. As it is, I can't even get one on the same level as this.
Where would you like to be in one year and five years' time?
Reallistically, in a job where I earn enough not to have to worry every month about whether there will be enough to pay the household bills, and where I can do something vaugely interesting or at least useful to someone.
Ideally, not having to go to an office every day but being able to do the things I like...reading, writing, church stuff... I wonder if there's any way I can get paid for doing those things...
But at the moment, I'd settle for still having a job.
Targets for the next six months:
Finish writing Misplaced.
Apply for other jobs.
Attempt not to get depressed about lack of progress with life or with the failure to be taken seriously by people; and attempt not to get upset at being continually forgotten and not considered for things I know I can do.
Now I suppose I should get on with writing my real answers to the questions...
To cheer me up, here are some of the pre-appraisal questions, and what I might like to answer...
Which part of the job interests you most?
Umm...payday? The internet?
Which part interests you least?
The actual work (when there is any).
Or possibly answering these questionnaires.
How do you feel you have performed in the last year?
Well, a hundred or so blog posts, a 60,000+ word story (and some other writings), a lot of minutes and business connected with running a G&S society isn't bad for a year's work, I guess. Oh, you mean actual office activities. Umm...ok I guess.
Which areas of your job are you unclear about?
Why you continually don't give me anything else to do, even when I've asked. Surely there must be something? Or are you really happy just to pay me to sit here and twiddle my thumbs?
Do you posess skills, knowlegdge or experience acquired elsewhere of which we do not make full use?
Yes. Do you really want a list? I have a degree, for starters. I can type with more than two fingers, and know how to use email. I know how to clean a bathroom, which is more than the current cleaner does...Could I sing to entertain clients in the waiting room? Or give minature lectures on European History?
Does your job description properly describe your duties and responsibilities?
Well, yes. We only revieved it six months ago. But put together they take up less than a quarter of the time I'm at work for.
Do you feel that you could take on other responsibilities?
What's the point in asking me this? I said yes the last two times I did this form, and you haven't given me any. I'd like a chance to learn some new skills or develop the ones I have so I stand some chance of getting another job. As it is, I can't even get one on the same level as this.
Where would you like to be in one year and five years' time?
Reallistically, in a job where I earn enough not to have to worry every month about whether there will be enough to pay the household bills, and where I can do something vaugely interesting or at least useful to someone.
Ideally, not having to go to an office every day but being able to do the things I like...reading, writing, church stuff... I wonder if there's any way I can get paid for doing those things...
But at the moment, I'd settle for still having a job.
Targets for the next six months:
Finish writing Misplaced.
Apply for other jobs.
Attempt not to get depressed about lack of progress with life or with the failure to be taken seriously by people; and attempt not to get upset at being continually forgotten and not considered for things I know I can do.
Now I suppose I should get on with writing my real answers to the questions...
Wednesday, 3 March 2010
Work and the church
"Work is not a necessary chore but a divine calling."
I came across that today in a WordLive reading. For people like me who have jobs that aren't particularly satisfying, those words are enough to make me feel ashamed. My job doesn't feel like a divine calling. The part of my job that appears to be the most useful to God is the uses I put my interet access too when there is no work to do, and that's not exactly part of my job! It makes me feel that I have failed, that I have got something wrong. Is that the job itself? Well, I believe God was clearly involved in the circumstances that got me the job. So is it my attitude that's wrong? Probably.
The passage itself is one I've thought about a lot. A few years ago, about the time when I was a few months out of university and utterly depressed because I couldn't even get a job in a shop, I heard a sermon on this passage (I think it was this one, or at least a very similar one) that really made me angry.
The speaker was very insensitive in the way he approached the passage, and what he said (I can't remember exactly how it was phrased) blamed people who- for whatever reason- didn't have a job. I thought this was quite insulting, and certainly not what Paul meant. The problem, I suspect, was that this was a middle-class church with a middle-class vicar. Unemployment was not something (in those days before the recession) was not something most of the congregation had to fear. But even so, I felt that it was wrong to condemn everyone who didn't have a paid job.
In my case- and that of many others- I wanted to work, but couldn't find a job. Was that my fault, as I was made to feel? It's hard enough that the benefits system makes you feel that you are a worthless person who is to blame for your own problems, without the church joining in- I would have thought that the church should be helping and supporting people in this situation, not making them feel worse. And what about the other situations that prevent people from having a job? Is someone to blame if they can't work through illness? What about parents who stay at home to care for their children? Is that wrong? Or people who have retired after many years of hard work?
One of the areas that the WordLive reading looked at was that of how work is shared out within the church. It's a well known saying that 10% of the people do 90% of the work. It certainly feels like that's true. Some people just seem to relax and let others do their share, while others just can't sit back and watch- if something needs to be done, they feel they have to do it. I know I'm in the second group. But as this video shows, neither is really right. People like me shouldn't do everything, otherwise we 'burnout' and miss out. But if not everyone is doing their fair share, it's inevitable that some people (often the clergy) will be doing too much.
Perhaps this is more what Paul is talking about. Because there's a difference between having a job and not being idle. In fact sometimes I think I'd be less idle if I didn't have a job (or at least this particular one...) When I was unemployed I spent a lot of time volunteering for my church, and doing other voluntary work. I may not have been contributing financially to the community, but I was giving a lot in other ways- time, effort, prayer. Paul condemns in this passage people who don't contribute to the community but simply take from others and sit back. Many people don't contribute to the church community as much as they could, either financially or with their time and gifts. They need to be encouraged to do so. Others do more than their fair share, and should perhaps be encouraged to rest. But to class all those who don't have paid jobs as 'idle' and say they are sinning is, I believe to misinterpret the passage. Cheerfully doing unpaid work and coping with the pressures of unemployment seems to me to be perhaps more honouring to God than having the security of a job- even a boring one- and continually grumbling about it. And I know I do that. So now I've had time to think about this, if I ever hear a sermon like that again I will challenge it.
If, of course, I have time, in between all the service rotas and mission planning...
I came across that today in a WordLive reading. For people like me who have jobs that aren't particularly satisfying, those words are enough to make me feel ashamed. My job doesn't feel like a divine calling. The part of my job that appears to be the most useful to God is the uses I put my interet access too when there is no work to do, and that's not exactly part of my job! It makes me feel that I have failed, that I have got something wrong. Is that the job itself? Well, I believe God was clearly involved in the circumstances that got me the job. So is it my attitude that's wrong? Probably.
The passage itself is one I've thought about a lot. A few years ago, about the time when I was a few months out of university and utterly depressed because I couldn't even get a job in a shop, I heard a sermon on this passage (I think it was this one, or at least a very similar one) that really made me angry.
The speaker was very insensitive in the way he approached the passage, and what he said (I can't remember exactly how it was phrased) blamed people who- for whatever reason- didn't have a job. I thought this was quite insulting, and certainly not what Paul meant. The problem, I suspect, was that this was a middle-class church with a middle-class vicar. Unemployment was not something (in those days before the recession) was not something most of the congregation had to fear. But even so, I felt that it was wrong to condemn everyone who didn't have a paid job.
In my case- and that of many others- I wanted to work, but couldn't find a job. Was that my fault, as I was made to feel? It's hard enough that the benefits system makes you feel that you are a worthless person who is to blame for your own problems, without the church joining in- I would have thought that the church should be helping and supporting people in this situation, not making them feel worse. And what about the other situations that prevent people from having a job? Is someone to blame if they can't work through illness? What about parents who stay at home to care for their children? Is that wrong? Or people who have retired after many years of hard work?
One of the areas that the WordLive reading looked at was that of how work is shared out within the church. It's a well known saying that 10% of the people do 90% of the work. It certainly feels like that's true. Some people just seem to relax and let others do their share, while others just can't sit back and watch- if something needs to be done, they feel they have to do it. I know I'm in the second group. But as this video shows, neither is really right. People like me shouldn't do everything, otherwise we 'burnout' and miss out. But if not everyone is doing their fair share, it's inevitable that some people (often the clergy) will be doing too much.
Perhaps this is more what Paul is talking about. Because there's a difference between having a job and not being idle. In fact sometimes I think I'd be less idle if I didn't have a job (or at least this particular one...) When I was unemployed I spent a lot of time volunteering for my church, and doing other voluntary work. I may not have been contributing financially to the community, but I was giving a lot in other ways- time, effort, prayer. Paul condemns in this passage people who don't contribute to the community but simply take from others and sit back. Many people don't contribute to the church community as much as they could, either financially or with their time and gifts. They need to be encouraged to do so. Others do more than their fair share, and should perhaps be encouraged to rest. But to class all those who don't have paid jobs as 'idle' and say they are sinning is, I believe to misinterpret the passage. Cheerfully doing unpaid work and coping with the pressures of unemployment seems to me to be perhaps more honouring to God than having the security of a job- even a boring one- and continually grumbling about it. And I know I do that. So now I've had time to think about this, if I ever hear a sermon like that again I will challenge it.
If, of course, I have time, in between all the service rotas and mission planning...
Wednesday, 17 February 2010
Green feminists
I was listening to the radio earlier and heard an interesting discussion on a statement that seemed to me at first to be ridiculous. The statement was the idea that environmentalism* was anti-feminist.
The speakers talked about how much** of the advice given to the public on green issues seems to focus on the home and on tasks that, traditionally, have been women's work. For example, shopping and cooking using local produce and fewer packaged ready meals. Or using washable nappies rather than disposable ones. The point was made that this might be all very well for middle class families where the mother doesn't work- spending time every day shopping and washing etc- but for lower income families who can't afford all that, or where both parents work (or single parent families) where they can't afford the time, it's a sometimes unaffordable struggle.
I have to say that part of me was thinking that perhaps we take our modern time-saving appliances too much for granted. Perhaps sometimes it's a case of not being bothered rather than not actually having the time. But I'm also sympathetic, especially to the cost argument. And I was intrigued by the thought that women are affected more than men. Women have, over the past century, benefited most from the rise in appliances to shorten the time and effort going into housekeeping. It has given them freedom from domestic slavery.
The fear some of the interviewees had was that by increasing the amount of time spent on housework you would increase the burden on women, many of whom already struggle to cope with juggling jobs and families. You (or I, at least) can very easily be made to feel guilty because sometimes we don't do things exactly as we would like; we get takeaway instead of cooking, or drive instead of walking, because we don't have time or just can't be bothered.
So what do I think? Well, thinking over the arguments I think the fears have been exaggerated. It's not a reason not to make some changes in our lifestyle to be more environmentally friendly. And yet there is a point to be made. The care of the household and family is still often seen as women's responsibility- you could use almost the same arguments about health advice as for green issues. The real problem seems to be that in the eyes of society and the media, women are still seen as the primary homemaker- they may well have a job too, but a woman doing most of the housework is seen as normal, while a man doing most of the housework would get some odd looks. But (in the case of this argument) shouldn't a man be equally responsible for the environmental impact of the house where he lives? For the food he (and his children, if he has any) eats, the time and energy involved in running the house?
So it's back to the old question of how to change people's attitudes and unconscious prejudices- I sometimes find myself making judgements about people because they are male or female, and then realising that I have no basis whatsoever for thinking that other than unconsciously assigning roles to people based on their gender. But I think there is some cause for hope even in that- I realise that the judgements I'm making are flawed. Society is changing its' opinion- slowly and with a long way to go yet, but it is happening.
*by which I mean trying to live in an environmentally friendly, 'green' way.
**I'm not mentioning green transport because I don't feel it's relevant to this discussion- if men have (traditionally) more influence in the personal car market, women probably are more frequent users of public transport.
The speakers talked about how much** of the advice given to the public on green issues seems to focus on the home and on tasks that, traditionally, have been women's work. For example, shopping and cooking using local produce and fewer packaged ready meals. Or using washable nappies rather than disposable ones. The point was made that this might be all very well for middle class families where the mother doesn't work- spending time every day shopping and washing etc- but for lower income families who can't afford all that, or where both parents work (or single parent families) where they can't afford the time, it's a sometimes unaffordable struggle.
I have to say that part of me was thinking that perhaps we take our modern time-saving appliances too much for granted. Perhaps sometimes it's a case of not being bothered rather than not actually having the time. But I'm also sympathetic, especially to the cost argument. And I was intrigued by the thought that women are affected more than men. Women have, over the past century, benefited most from the rise in appliances to shorten the time and effort going into housekeeping. It has given them freedom from domestic slavery.
The fear some of the interviewees had was that by increasing the amount of time spent on housework you would increase the burden on women, many of whom already struggle to cope with juggling jobs and families. You (or I, at least) can very easily be made to feel guilty because sometimes we don't do things exactly as we would like; we get takeaway instead of cooking, or drive instead of walking, because we don't have time or just can't be bothered.
So what do I think? Well, thinking over the arguments I think the fears have been exaggerated. It's not a reason not to make some changes in our lifestyle to be more environmentally friendly. And yet there is a point to be made. The care of the household and family is still often seen as women's responsibility- you could use almost the same arguments about health advice as for green issues. The real problem seems to be that in the eyes of society and the media, women are still seen as the primary homemaker- they may well have a job too, but a woman doing most of the housework is seen as normal, while a man doing most of the housework would get some odd looks. But (in the case of this argument) shouldn't a man be equally responsible for the environmental impact of the house where he lives? For the food he (and his children, if he has any) eats, the time and energy involved in running the house?
So it's back to the old question of how to change people's attitudes and unconscious prejudices- I sometimes find myself making judgements about people because they are male or female, and then realising that I have no basis whatsoever for thinking that other than unconsciously assigning roles to people based on their gender. But I think there is some cause for hope even in that- I realise that the judgements I'm making are flawed. Society is changing its' opinion- slowly and with a long way to go yet, but it is happening.
*by which I mean trying to live in an environmentally friendly, 'green' way.
**I'm not mentioning green transport because I don't feel it's relevant to this discussion- if men have (traditionally) more influence in the personal car market, women probably are more frequent users of public transport.
Sunday, 10 January 2010
2009
2009 hasn't been a bad year. That's not to say there haven't been times when I've felt very down, times when I've been saddened, upset, angry, frustrated. In fact, in many ways my life doesn't seem to have changed from where I was this time last year. Much of what I wrote then is still true. If anything, I think perhaps I feel a little further away from God just at the moment than I did then- and I'm not happy with that. As every month, every year passes without any of the things I want- and feel God wants me to be like or do- coming closer it seems to get harder to trust, but I know I have to keep trying.
But 2009 was also a year with many 'ups.' Time spent with friends, my first opportunities at principal parts in G&S (although that has caused a fair bit of stress, too- sorry directors!) holidays, passing my driving test, little things that make life worthwhile. Knowing that some people care about me- even if I often forget and feel lonely. And not least being grateful that even if my job isn't great, at least I have one.
In some ways the above is also a fair summary of the last ten years. There were some times, some years when I felt really dreadful, as if everything was crashing around me, and I've frequently felt a failure. And there were times when I began to discover true friendship and joy and freedom as I'd never know them before. Times when I was scared even of things I knew how to do, and times when I was thrilled to try new experiences. But although I've often felt lonely I've always known I'm not alone. And that won't change.
And to round it off, here's some of my favourite posts from last year. I got quite excited when I realised that I'd written exactly 100 posts in 2009!
Journeys
Equality of the sexes? Not yet.
Rental Rant
Would women have caused the credit crunch?
Bannanas, Bibleman, and banging my head on a brick wall
The Dream of the Rood
But 2009 was also a year with many 'ups.' Time spent with friends, my first opportunities at principal parts in G&S (although that has caused a fair bit of stress, too- sorry directors!) holidays, passing my driving test, little things that make life worthwhile. Knowing that some people care about me- even if I often forget and feel lonely. And not least being grateful that even if my job isn't great, at least I have one.
In some ways the above is also a fair summary of the last ten years. There were some times, some years when I felt really dreadful, as if everything was crashing around me, and I've frequently felt a failure. And there were times when I began to discover true friendship and joy and freedom as I'd never know them before. Times when I was scared even of things I knew how to do, and times when I was thrilled to try new experiences. But although I've often felt lonely I've always known I'm not alone. And that won't change.
And to round it off, here's some of my favourite posts from last year. I got quite excited when I realised that I'd written exactly 100 posts in 2009!
Journeys
Equality of the sexes? Not yet.
Rental Rant
Would women have caused the credit crunch?
Bannanas, Bibleman, and banging my head on a brick wall
The Dream of the Rood
Wednesday, 6 January 2010
Things Lois Likes
I was going to do one of those 'review of the year' type posts, but I haven't got round to it yet- and then the server crashed at work! So in the meantime here's a light-hearted list of Things Lois Likes.
Waterproof walking boots. Now I know I said a while back that I like snow, but it's now been on the ground for three weeks solid. Snow, slush, frozen slush, snow that's melted and frozen again, plain and black ice. There are many days I'd have struggled to get to work without sliding all the way and getting feet wetter than the North Sea if I didn't have my nice cosy, dry walking boots with good tread.
Laptop, wireless internet and iPlayer. I might have gone mad over Christmas at my parents' if it wasn't for my laptop. I downloaded stuff to take with me and watch, I could write stuff, read stuff, play games, listen to music. And when now I'm back in York, wireless internet access means I can sit in my nice warm bed and watch videos, or on the comfy sofa downstairs and check emails without having to be tied to a wire and computer desk. Lovely!
Hot chocolate. Just the thing for this time of year. Or indeed any kind of chocolate. Oh, and I must make some soup.
YouTube. BBC Worldwide made my New Year weekend when I discovered some classic Dr Who serials had been put online.
Our Christmas tree. Although sadly we've just taken it down. It's even better because it has a knitted Dalek on top.
Snowmen. Especially the one on the fountain in York city centre that is wearing a high-vis jacket, safety helmet and black wig. But despite all this snow I haven't made one yet, or thrown a snowball at anyone. I want my mischievous housemate back!
Waterproof walking boots. Now I know I said a while back that I like snow, but it's now been on the ground for three weeks solid. Snow, slush, frozen slush, snow that's melted and frozen again, plain and black ice. There are many days I'd have struggled to get to work without sliding all the way and getting feet wetter than the North Sea if I didn't have my nice cosy, dry walking boots with good tread.
Laptop, wireless internet and iPlayer. I might have gone mad over Christmas at my parents' if it wasn't for my laptop. I downloaded stuff to take with me and watch, I could write stuff, read stuff, play games, listen to music. And when now I'm back in York, wireless internet access means I can sit in my nice warm bed and watch videos, or on the comfy sofa downstairs and check emails without having to be tied to a wire and computer desk. Lovely!
Hot chocolate. Just the thing for this time of year. Or indeed any kind of chocolate. Oh, and I must make some soup.
YouTube. BBC Worldwide made my New Year weekend when I discovered some classic Dr Who serials had been put online.
Our Christmas tree. Although sadly we've just taken it down. It's even better because it has a knitted Dalek on top.
Snowmen. Especially the one on the fountain in York city centre that is wearing a high-vis jacket, safety helmet and black wig. But despite all this snow I haven't made one yet, or thrown a snowball at anyone. I want my mischievous housemate back!
Sunday, 20 December 2009
Advent 09- G&S
You've probably realised by now that I'm a fan of G&S- Gilbert and Sullivan, nineteenth century musicals or 'light opera'. Why do I like it? I can't say exactly, probably a mixture of catchy, singable tunes, some wonderful comic lyrics and dialogue, the colour and costume. Partly because most of the time it's performed by amateurs, and it's obvious that the performers are enjoying themselves too, to the extent that amateur performances are often better, more innovative and energetic than professionals.
I've been involved with amateur G&S for several years now, and one of the things I've liked most in both the groups I'm involved with is the accessibility. No one has to audition to be in the chorus. Although most people tend to have at least some experience of singing in a choir, or of acting, there are others who join with practically none- like me. There have been some people who are fantastic actors but not as good at singing. And yet the overall sound still sounds and looks great. And you do learn, even if you can't read music, you pick it up as you go along.
Being in the chorus is great fun, and it certainly helped me improve my singing over several years. But the main thing that improved was my confidence. When I first joined, I hadn't done any acting since primary school, and more or less my only singing was at church. I expected I was going to be thrown out (well, politely asked to leave) within my first term! Everyone else seemed to be so much better than me. And when we got to acting, the first thing we did I was put at the front (being short) and told to lead everyone else on. I was terrified!
And yet, when we got to show week, I was hardly nervous at all, and everything went well. Suddenly I realised that I could do this, that I was as good as anyone else (and maybe better than some people). It was perhaps the biggest confidence boost I'd ever had.
Since then my G&S career has gone up and down. I did my first solo in a concert at the end of my first year, and was very nervous about it. Strangely, I still get more nervous in concerts than in full shows. This year I had my first principal role in a new company's first show, and although I wasn't at all worried on the night, during rehearsals I was tremendously anxious about whether I was good enough, and afraid that because I was really struggling with some bits I had to sing I was going to disappoint the people who gave me the part- and that I'd never get another chance. I've been feeling exactly the same the last few weeks about a part I've got in another show with the first company I joined, worried I'm not good enough, and will make a mess of things by not being as good as the other principals. Sometimes it really gets me down and upset, especially if I can't tell if it's right or not.
But when it goes well, it's great. G&S has helped me develop sides of me I never knew I had- singing, speaking, performing. It's helped me find confidence, which for someone like me who has incredibly low self-confidence and self-belief is a wonderful thing. Even if, ironically, lack of confidence then becomes a problem that stops me singing as well as I could, I'd still rather give it a go than not. Definitely a Good Thing as far as I'm concerned.
I've been involved with amateur G&S for several years now, and one of the things I've liked most in both the groups I'm involved with is the accessibility. No one has to audition to be in the chorus. Although most people tend to have at least some experience of singing in a choir, or of acting, there are others who join with practically none- like me. There have been some people who are fantastic actors but not as good at singing. And yet the overall sound still sounds and looks great. And you do learn, even if you can't read music, you pick it up as you go along.
Being in the chorus is great fun, and it certainly helped me improve my singing over several years. But the main thing that improved was my confidence. When I first joined, I hadn't done any acting since primary school, and more or less my only singing was at church. I expected I was going to be thrown out (well, politely asked to leave) within my first term! Everyone else seemed to be so much better than me. And when we got to acting, the first thing we did I was put at the front (being short) and told to lead everyone else on. I was terrified!
And yet, when we got to show week, I was hardly nervous at all, and everything went well. Suddenly I realised that I could do this, that I was as good as anyone else (and maybe better than some people). It was perhaps the biggest confidence boost I'd ever had.
Since then my G&S career has gone up and down. I did my first solo in a concert at the end of my first year, and was very nervous about it. Strangely, I still get more nervous in concerts than in full shows. This year I had my first principal role in a new company's first show, and although I wasn't at all worried on the night, during rehearsals I was tremendously anxious about whether I was good enough, and afraid that because I was really struggling with some bits I had to sing I was going to disappoint the people who gave me the part- and that I'd never get another chance. I've been feeling exactly the same the last few weeks about a part I've got in another show with the first company I joined, worried I'm not good enough, and will make a mess of things by not being as good as the other principals. Sometimes it really gets me down and upset, especially if I can't tell if it's right or not.
But when it goes well, it's great. G&S has helped me develop sides of me I never knew I had- singing, speaking, performing. It's helped me find confidence, which for someone like me who has incredibly low self-confidence and self-belief is a wonderful thing. Even if, ironically, lack of confidence then becomes a problem that stops me singing as well as I could, I'd still rather give it a go than not. Definitely a Good Thing as far as I'm concerned.
Wednesday, 16 December 2009
Advent 09- The Internet and World Wide Web
I love the internet. We so often take it for granted today that it's easy to forget that twenty years ago it wasn't there- at least, not as we know it. No email, no Facebook, no iPlayer, no YouTube, no blogs! What I am doing now would have been impossible before the 1990's. Even BBC iPlayer, something that's been around only two years or so, has now become something many of us take completely for granted.
Through Facebook I've been able to keep in touch with what my friends are up to once they left university and spread out across the country. I've been able to reconnect with people I haven't seen since I was sixteen. I've been able to hear from family members I rarely see because they live far away- and sometimes realise we have friends in common! I've been able to share photos and even videos, without having to nag friends for copies. And I've been able to use blogging to stop myself going mad in an under-demanding job. A friend even met her boyfriend via an online game.
The internet isn't all sweetness and light, of course. There is a darker side, just as there is with any form of technology or indeed pretty much any aspect of life. But no one's suggested we shut down Royal Mail because a letter might contain poison chemicals or a parcel might be a bomb. We just have to recognise the possible dangers of the medium we're using to communicate- and remember not to make anything public if we don't want it to be public!
So I think the internet/ web is a Good Thing. As well as the above social uses, there are of course many uses for academic research and co-operation, (which is of course its' original purpose), and communication for businesses, for shopping and finding those random bits of information you suddenly need, like the words to a song or where the nearest Chinese takeaway is. And what will we be using it for in twenty years time? I look forward to finding out (if I can still understand how to use it by then...!
Through Facebook I've been able to keep in touch with what my friends are up to once they left university and spread out across the country. I've been able to reconnect with people I haven't seen since I was sixteen. I've been able to hear from family members I rarely see because they live far away- and sometimes realise we have friends in common! I've been able to share photos and even videos, without having to nag friends for copies. And I've been able to use blogging to stop myself going mad in an under-demanding job. A friend even met her boyfriend via an online game.
The internet isn't all sweetness and light, of course. There is a darker side, just as there is with any form of technology or indeed pretty much any aspect of life. But no one's suggested we shut down Royal Mail because a letter might contain poison chemicals or a parcel might be a bomb. We just have to recognise the possible dangers of the medium we're using to communicate- and remember not to make anything public if we don't want it to be public!
So I think the internet/ web is a Good Thing. As well as the above social uses, there are of course many uses for academic research and co-operation, (which is of course its' original purpose), and communication for businesses, for shopping and finding those random bits of information you suddenly need, like the words to a song or where the nearest Chinese takeaway is. And what will we be using it for in twenty years time? I look forward to finding out (if I can still understand how to use it by then...!
Sunday, 13 December 2009
Advent 09- Friends
Today my Good Thing is something- or some people- that I am really very thankful for. My friends.
I was quite a lonely kid at school. Through most of primary and secondary school I didn't really fit in- I didn't like the same music, wasn't interested in talking only about boys, didn't hang around the swings after school drinking and smoking. In a way, I was too intellectual to fit in with half my year group, and too shy to push my way into the other half- the clever and cool half.
It wasn't really until sixth form, when people from several other schools joined ours and everyone was mixed around a bit, that I found any proper friends, people who had interests beyond pop stars and who fancies who, people who would notice when you were upset and try to help. Before that, I'd either been alone or hung around the edges of gangs of people who couldn't care less about me- who would join in with the laughing and name calling when the bullies turned up- to make sure they didn't become the next victim.
But it was once I got to uni that I really found friends I could relax with and trust, friends from the CU and church and from G&S. People who actually liked me as a person, and who are there, willing to listen, when something goes wrong. That's the kind of friends I'm very grateful for. Friends who, when I first met them, I never imagined that a few years later I would be helping them prepare for their weddings, or going on holiday with them, or living with them for five years. And yet- those things have happened.
My friends are wonderful people, and an answer to many prayers, even if they don't realise it. I've already thanked them once in this series. But they're worth more than that. So thank you again, all my friends, and I hope I can be as good a friend to you as you are to me.
I was quite a lonely kid at school. Through most of primary and secondary school I didn't really fit in- I didn't like the same music, wasn't interested in talking only about boys, didn't hang around the swings after school drinking and smoking. In a way, I was too intellectual to fit in with half my year group, and too shy to push my way into the other half- the clever and cool half.
It wasn't really until sixth form, when people from several other schools joined ours and everyone was mixed around a bit, that I found any proper friends, people who had interests beyond pop stars and who fancies who, people who would notice when you were upset and try to help. Before that, I'd either been alone or hung around the edges of gangs of people who couldn't care less about me- who would join in with the laughing and name calling when the bullies turned up- to make sure they didn't become the next victim.
But it was once I got to uni that I really found friends I could relax with and trust, friends from the CU and church and from G&S. People who actually liked me as a person, and who are there, willing to listen, when something goes wrong. That's the kind of friends I'm very grateful for. Friends who, when I first met them, I never imagined that a few years later I would be helping them prepare for their weddings, or going on holiday with them, or living with them for five years. And yet- those things have happened.
My friends are wonderful people, and an answer to many prayers, even if they don't realise it. I've already thanked them once in this series. But they're worth more than that. So thank you again, all my friends, and I hope I can be as good a friend to you as you are to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)