It all started in late May 2013, a young 16 year old me had been looking for a job since March, when her mother told her a new Hobbycraft store was opening in Eastbourne and was hiring all ages and all availabilities, this was my moment, I applied and was told I would hear back in four weeks or less. Four weeks went by and no reply came from Hobbycraft so I forgot about it and asked for a volunteer position at the cafe inside out town's hospital. It was the day before I accepted my position there when Hobbycraft called me in for an interview just two days later. I told the woman running the volunteer ran cafe that I would have to delay the acceptance for a while, which she was very happy to do for me. So I went to the interview scrubbed up in my mum's blouse and an old school skirt (money saving skillz) and my recent card making (by recent I mean I made them the night before).
This interview was not what I had expected though, we were allowed to do some crafting and it was, by all means, fun, I made sure to talk to everyone, aware that we were being watched and this was clearly to assess our communication and social skills as well as our ability to learn new crafts. (I stuck to decopatch, something I knew I could do) and soon I was called in for my official interview.
It's worth mentioning that I was nervous during the introductions so I didn't listen or absorb the information they gave us of the names of the people who would be doing the interviews. The man interviewing me, it turns out, was my manager, but lord knows I didn't know that until after the interview, but I'm kind of glad, I probably would have been much more nervous if I had known.
The interview, as far as I was concerned, went okay, but I knew I had fucked up a couple of things, but I left and didn't think I'd hear from them again, but they called me and offered me a four hour contract, which was fine for me, I only needed a few hours every weekend as I was also going to be going to college that year.
The manager, it turns out, was awful, just truly awful, I found him irritating and just not very friendly, proven by his attitude on his last day when he quit and was just very rude to every customer. Luckily he wasn't there for very long.
Apart from him, I really liked my colleagues and I was paid money to do things I enjoyed and was already doing for free with my beaver scout group. I was very happy!
Unfortunately, though, the reality of retail soon caught up with me. On the whole I got on well with customers and I didn't mind doing the little annoying tasks like stocking buttons or fiddly paper craft stuff, but there was a handful experiences that made me understand how difficult retail can be.
One time someone asked to sniff my hair.
This is not a joke, a man literally asked to sniff my hair. It was scary. At the time I had a pink and blue ends on my hair (and they looked terrible, but that's not the point) anyway, for ease at work I wore my hair in two plaits either side of my head. This man had bought probably the cheapest item we offer, a small pack of chocolate buttons. I completed the transaction and was asking him things like how his day was, standard small talk. Then this happens:
"You have lovely hair,"
"Thank you! Would you like a bag with that?"
"Can I smell your hair?"
"..."
"Please"
"Sorry, no, no thank you, here's your receipt,"
"Please, I promise I'll leave once I've smelt it,"
"No, you may not smell my hair, is there anything else I can help you with today sir?"
"Can you at least tell me what it smells like, I just have this thing..."
"um... I mean... I use an apple scented shampoo so... Apples?"
He then moans/sighs and then takes his item and leaves. It was terrifying! It was probably the third most terrifying interaction I've had in my entire life.
Anyway, so apart from that and some very rude customers, I've actually enjoyed my time at Hobbycraft. My colleagues and regular customers have been wonderful to see every week and I am going to miss it!
I did look into a transfer to another store, closer to Bangor, but I had no luck, so I will be having to start somewhere new when I arrive at University.
But I have to lend my thanks to Hobbycraft for hiring me even though I had no retail experience and, despite some weird experiences, being a very very good first job. Thank you to my managers, and thank you to my colleagues and customers, and last of all a massive thank you to my mum for giving me a lift to work every day you can.
On to the next adventure.
As always feel free to leave a comment below, maybe tell me your experiences with jobs you've had.
Until next time,
Stephanie
Showing posts with label workingclass. Show all posts
Showing posts with label workingclass. Show all posts
Tuesday, 8 September 2015
Sunday, 16 August 2015
Sociology Sundays: Marxism and Toy Story
Let it be known that I am a huge fan of Pixar, in fact, as I write this I am sitting in some Finding Nemo PJs and I have to say, the Toy Story trilogy is very much my favourite group of movies that exist, but there are some very interesting moments in it that I think Karl Marx might have a problem with. And being the loser that I am I will be combining two things I love, Marxism and Toy Story and telling you what Marx might say about this childhood classic.
The first thing we need to do is work out how the class system works within Andy's room. Whilst Andy and humans in general would be the obvious choice for ruling class it's also interesting to look at the dynamic between the toys so I will be splitting this into two sections. The Toys and The Humans.
THE TOYS
Firstly we should look at the main character, Woody, Woody is in a position of power, he runs Andy's room, and it all seems to be going well. From what we can tell, Woody runs the room because he is Andy's favourite. This is almost like the "god given right" Kings and Queens were bestowed in order to run a country. At first glance we would assume Marx would label this a bad thing, like he does with god given rights etc. however, I don't believe that it is as simple as that.Whilst it is entirely possible to consider Woody a "Kingly" figure and Andy the "god-like" figure, the fact that it is okay for the rest of the toys, who all seem equal in their ranking after Woody, it could be looked at as a near-communist society with one person in power. This is, obviously, something Karl Marx would be close to liking.
If we also take into consideration that Buzz finds his way to the top very quickly and all the other toys migrate to like him we could argue that it is the choice of the "lower class" and, therefore, it is more of a chosen leader, rather than assigned. Woody is no more likely to be in charge than, say, Mr Potato Head, or Hamm, it is all to do with how the other toys perceive Woody.
Woody has also, it is assumed, been around longer than the other toys, which makes him more experienced, now whilst I am not 100% sure on Marx's opinion of electing the smartest person to lead a group, I know that Gramsci, is definitely all for "counter-hegemonic blocs" which means a group of in the know "working class" people using their smarts to overrule the oppressive 1%.However, the only time where is it 100% clear who the oppressive toy is, is in the third movie with Lotso. He is a dictator with a group that do all the work for him in oppressing all the toys who step out of line, using devices such as CCTV, Prison and even torture (the sandbox). This is, personally, one of the best aspects of Toy Story 3 and, of course we get the brilliant line from "Marxist Barbie"...
THE HUMANS
As I mentioned before, within Andy's Room the Toys appear to be happy to be ruled over by Andy, he is like a God to them, someone they look up to and rely on, even after he has thrown out a lot of the toys. Heck Woody loses the his love interest, Bo Peep all because Andy grew too old for her, but Woody looks up to Andy in a way that this doesn't deter him at all. This is something Marx hated. He hated religion, he called it "the opium of the people" because it was and is something that some people blindly follow even if they don't agree with everything they are doing. It is something, according to Marx, that wealthy people created to keep the poor subdued. Lenin called it "spiritual gin" and this seems to be the case for Woody and his friends. They all follow Andy or Bonnie (presumably) no matter what. Heck, Jessie was cast aside by Emily and even she eventually gave into another human.
What Woody does with Sid is a perfect example of a revolution from the "underclass" the toys all group together to prevent another injustice being done aka the killing of one of their kind. This, to me, is amazing, it is exactly what Marx wants from all the working class people in the world and it is exactly what I want to see in my favourite movie series of all time. 
Thanks Pixar for introducing adult themes into kids movies, they have influenced me so much in my interest in politics and other issues like pollution, bravery, and feminism. (See Wall.E, Monsters Inc, and Brave)
So yeah, there are a few thoughts I had about Toy Story, this was fun for me, I basically got to combine two of my favourite things.
I haven't decided on a topic for next week so let me know what you would like to see and I will give it a go.
Until next time,
Stephanie
Saturday, 8 August 2015
The Sociologist Series: Marxism and Schooling
I don't know if I ever mentioned this, but I have been studying sociology for four years and one topic that interests me more than almost anything else is looking at our education system and looking at the way others perceive it. I will warn you now that because of this I have created my own bias towards these topics which, for me at least, are justified. That being said I am always open to new ideas, but for now I will just write what I know.
Marxists are, perhaps, my favourite group of sociologists, from Althusser to Zaretsky (see what I did there?) and I find the Marxist approach to education particularly enthralling. I don't know what it is about their approaches, but they all make so much sense to me.
An outline of the Marxist perspective on education:
So Marxists believe that society is split into two classes, the working class and the ruling class. The ruling class are the richest people who run businesses etc. and the working class are... well workers, they work for minimum wage and are, according to Marxists, oppressed. This translates into the school system as well. With public and private schools running alongside one another there are bound to be a few children with a better chance in life than others. As well as this parents with more money are able to provide essential and non-essential items to help their children out with homework and they can provide tutors when their child is doing less well in certain subjects.
Whilst there are a few exceptions to this rule it's very rare that a child from a very low income family will be able to break through these barriers. It's not just a money issue, working class families have less interest in schooling because their parents and their parents before them etc. "got on fine without school". They can live without any qualifications and for them, school was a place where the richer kids were treated better... and the thing is, they're not wrong.
Sociologists Rosenthal and Jacobson, and Cicourel and Kitsuse all discovered evidence of "teacher labelling" in schools. They found that teachers labelled their students as "bright" or "stupid" based on their behaviour and willingness to participate. The teachers would then treat the "brighter" students with more respect and lend them more help whilst the "stupid" ones were often treated as a nuisance.
But why do teachers do this?
One reason for teachers having to catagorise students is that they have to achieve an average grade score. Much like students, teachers have targets they have to reach in order to keep their jobs. For this reason they tend to leave the students who comfortably sit on the A/B border to work for themselves and leave those deemed "not salvageable" at D/E/F and focus all their attention on those on the C/D border to get more students to the average of a C. Because they have these goals it can be very difficult for a teacher to remain neutral with their students.
Another reason is just a general bias, yes "not all teachers" do this intentionally, but I'm about 90% sure that most teachers are human and humans have a bias on almost everything they come into contact with. Even though I'm sure most teachers attempt neutrality it's not always possible. A teacher is likely to take in the overall attitude, appearance, and lifestyle (yes some schools do disclose personal information like children on benefit) and they definitely know if you are on free school meals, and they can then make judgements of the students and treat them accordingly. For example, if you turn up with messy hair, a stain on your shirt, are late for any reason, and have free school meals a teacher might class you as unkempt, lazy, and, if they hold the anti-poor bias that some middle class people do, they might even think being poor is wrong and you are just mooching off the government and "living off their tax money". This can result in poor treatment, less help and being ignored.
All of this is a vicious cycle and one that Marxists have pointed out on several occasions (much to the dismay of the government who hate to admit that there is a huge gap between the wealthy or well off and the poor)
Anyway, I truly could ramble on about this for days on end, but I won't. If you are interested in anymore information on Marxists and education I can recommend reading some of the scholarly articles on google here:
https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=sociology+of+education+marxist+perspective&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1
That's it for today, let me know in the comments what you think,
Until next time,
Stephanie
An outline of the Marxist perspective on education:
So Marxists believe that society is split into two classes, the working class and the ruling class. The ruling class are the richest people who run businesses etc. and the working class are... well workers, they work for minimum wage and are, according to Marxists, oppressed. This translates into the school system as well. With public and private schools running alongside one another there are bound to be a few children with a better chance in life than others. As well as this parents with more money are able to provide essential and non-essential items to help their children out with homework and they can provide tutors when their child is doing less well in certain subjects.
Whilst there are a few exceptions to this rule it's very rare that a child from a very low income family will be able to break through these barriers. It's not just a money issue, working class families have less interest in schooling because their parents and their parents before them etc. "got on fine without school". They can live without any qualifications and for them, school was a place where the richer kids were treated better... and the thing is, they're not wrong.
But why do teachers do this?
One reason for teachers having to catagorise students is that they have to achieve an average grade score. Much like students, teachers have targets they have to reach in order to keep their jobs. For this reason they tend to leave the students who comfortably sit on the A/B border to work for themselves and leave those deemed "not salvageable" at D/E/F and focus all their attention on those on the C/D border to get more students to the average of a C. Because they have these goals it can be very difficult for a teacher to remain neutral with their students.
Another reason is just a general bias, yes "not all teachers" do this intentionally, but I'm about 90% sure that most teachers are human and humans have a bias on almost everything they come into contact with. Even though I'm sure most teachers attempt neutrality it's not always possible. A teacher is likely to take in the overall attitude, appearance, and lifestyle (yes some schools do disclose personal information like children on benefit) and they definitely know if you are on free school meals, and they can then make judgements of the students and treat them accordingly. For example, if you turn up with messy hair, a stain on your shirt, are late for any reason, and have free school meals a teacher might class you as unkempt, lazy, and, if they hold the anti-poor bias that some middle class people do, they might even think being poor is wrong and you are just mooching off the government and "living off their tax money". This can result in poor treatment, less help and being ignored.
All of this is a vicious cycle and one that Marxists have pointed out on several occasions (much to the dismay of the government who hate to admit that there is a huge gap between the wealthy or well off and the poor)
Anyway, I truly could ramble on about this for days on end, but I won't. If you are interested in anymore information on Marxists and education I can recommend reading some of the scholarly articles on google here:
https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=sociology+of+education+marxist+perspective&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1
That's it for today, let me know in the comments what you think,
Until next time,
Stephanie
Saturday, 9 May 2015
UK Election Results 2k15
WARNING: This post contains A LOT of brackets and I mean A LOT!
Right, so I know I have a few readers who are not from the UK so this might not be as easy to understand for you so just this once you get the excuse to not read this... BUT if you do want to know about the problems facing Britain right now then stay tuned because it is about to get ugly up in here.
In the UK we have two major parties: Conservatives and Labour. In their most basic forms Conservatives (The Tories) are a party for the wealthy and Labour are a party "for the people". During the 2015 elections David Cameron was the leader for the Conservatives (And he still is) and Ed Miliband was the leader for Labour (Miliband has since stepped down). Other parties involved were the SNP (Scottish National Party: Leader Nicola Sturgeon) who can't actually be in charge of UK politics because of their "national" status. UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party aka one policy party to be strict on immigration aka "the Racists") The Greens (Probably the one I identify the most with they are the most liberal, but again on the surface appear to be one policy in that they are very much pro-environment) Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems) Let's be honest they weren't as important this year. And then some other Independent ones and some Welsh and some Irish ones... ceebs go into it.
Now you know the basics I will launch into my many rants which I will title so you don't have to read the ones you aren't interested in.
VOTING SYSTEM
In the UK we have a system called "First Past the Post". Under this system we vote for who we want to represent our area (constituency) and whoever gets that majority becomes a seat for their party in the House of Commons. E.g. in my constituency (Eastbourne) we have had Stephen Lloyd as our MP (Member of Parliament) for the past five years, this year Conservatives won by just over 700 and so Caroline Ansell is now our MP. Her MP-hood becomes 1 seat for the Conservative Party. The party with the majority of seats (326 as there are 650 constituencies in the UK) wins the election. SIMPLE! But, alas, this is an unfair way of going about it.
Below is a chart showing you how many people voted for which parties in the UK:
This is how many seats these parties won... SPOT THE DIFFERENCE!
This is how many seats would be given under PR (Proportional Representation) this seems a bit more fair... no?:
I personally don't think PR works all that well. It is more difficult to get a majority vote especially when it comes to making decisions after a "winner" is declared (In this case it would still be Conservatives, but I'll save that rant for later) HOWEVER, I still think it is closer to the sort of politics I want to see than that of FPTP as it gives a chance to parties like the Greens to have their say in what happens to our country. They get the chance to make a difference!
And I'll just sit here and imagine your "But what if UKIP" arguments. Yes, FPTP mostly kept UKIP out of Parliament this year, but THIS ISN'T DEMOCRACY!!! UKIP are awful, I disagree with everything they stand for, but they got the votes and their voters deserve the right to have their voices heard! It's simple democracy. (Plus they might be able to finally see how bad the party actually is)
I hope this helps you to see how flawed our current system is.
CONSERVATIVES vs LABOUR
A hashtag that has been trending, and I have shared and partaken in this hashtag, is the #ToriesOutNow tag. This is trending in light of demonstrations and petitions against another 5 years of the buttcrack of parliament that is the Conservative Party. And I know I've been discreet, but yes, I do not like the Tories. I feel their policies are very much in favour of the 1% and the fact they want to privatise and sell our NHS is not good (I happen to like the NHS despite it's problems.) But... If I was to try and be as unbiased as possible I would have to disagree with the hashtag. Whilst I do not like the Tories, either way you look at it they got the majority vote. Even through the more favourable PR.
In this section I want to discuss how they won over that majority.
Playground Politics.
They basically made a mockery out of Ed Miliband by posting front page news with full page blown up pictures of him eating a sandwich in an, admittedly, poor way. They slated every move he made! As well as this they used the SNP and possible maybe coalition with Labour as a fear tactic and, because the Tories own about 70% of UK newspapers, it worked. They successfully bullied the people of Britain into voting for them.
WHERE TO GO FROM HERE
The most important thing we can do over the next few weeks is keep talking about it! Keep protesting this system that allows room for oppression and bullying and immature politics. In the long term, if this doesn't work out, the best idea I can fathom for those who aren't planning on leaving the UK and starting an underground DJ group in Berlin (Like me and my friends Shannon, Rachael and Eric are planning on doing... We'll be called Holy Trinity feat. Steph incase you were wondering) the best idea I can think of, when all hope is lost and protesting is no longer happening, is to just sit tight, hope we as a country can get through this and, once it is over, in 5 years time, we can regroup and try to start something new.
I hope.
As always, comment below and let me know what you think and ask me any questions, stay open minded.
Steph
Right, so I know I have a few readers who are not from the UK so this might not be as easy to understand for you so just this once you get the excuse to not read this... BUT if you do want to know about the problems facing Britain right now then stay tuned because it is about to get ugly up in here.
In the UK we have two major parties: Conservatives and Labour. In their most basic forms Conservatives (The Tories) are a party for the wealthy and Labour are a party "for the people". During the 2015 elections David Cameron was the leader for the Conservatives (And he still is) and Ed Miliband was the leader for Labour (Miliband has since stepped down). Other parties involved were the SNP (Scottish National Party: Leader Nicola Sturgeon) who can't actually be in charge of UK politics because of their "national" status. UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party aka one policy party to be strict on immigration aka "the Racists") The Greens (Probably the one I identify the most with they are the most liberal, but again on the surface appear to be one policy in that they are very much pro-environment) Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems) Let's be honest they weren't as important this year. And then some other Independent ones and some Welsh and some Irish ones... ceebs go into it.
Now you know the basics I will launch into my many rants which I will title so you don't have to read the ones you aren't interested in.
VOTING SYSTEM
In the UK we have a system called "First Past the Post". Under this system we vote for who we want to represent our area (constituency) and whoever gets that majority becomes a seat for their party in the House of Commons. E.g. in my constituency (Eastbourne) we have had Stephen Lloyd as our MP (Member of Parliament) for the past five years, this year Conservatives won by just over 700 and so Caroline Ansell is now our MP. Her MP-hood becomes 1 seat for the Conservative Party. The party with the majority of seats (326 as there are 650 constituencies in the UK) wins the election. SIMPLE! But, alas, this is an unfair way of going about it.
Below is a chart showing you how many people voted for which parties in the UK:
This is how many seats these parties won... SPOT THE DIFFERENCE!
This is how many seats would be given under PR (Proportional Representation) this seems a bit more fair... no?:
I personally don't think PR works all that well. It is more difficult to get a majority vote especially when it comes to making decisions after a "winner" is declared (In this case it would still be Conservatives, but I'll save that rant for later) HOWEVER, I still think it is closer to the sort of politics I want to see than that of FPTP as it gives a chance to parties like the Greens to have their say in what happens to our country. They get the chance to make a difference!
And I'll just sit here and imagine your "But what if UKIP" arguments. Yes, FPTP mostly kept UKIP out of Parliament this year, but THIS ISN'T DEMOCRACY!!! UKIP are awful, I disagree with everything they stand for, but they got the votes and their voters deserve the right to have their voices heard! It's simple democracy. (Plus they might be able to finally see how bad the party actually is)
I hope this helps you to see how flawed our current system is.
CONSERVATIVES vs LABOUR
A hashtag that has been trending, and I have shared and partaken in this hashtag, is the #ToriesOutNow tag. This is trending in light of demonstrations and petitions against another 5 years of the buttcrack of parliament that is the Conservative Party. And I know I've been discreet, but yes, I do not like the Tories. I feel their policies are very much in favour of the 1% and the fact they want to privatise and sell our NHS is not good (I happen to like the NHS despite it's problems.) But... If I was to try and be as unbiased as possible I would have to disagree with the hashtag. Whilst I do not like the Tories, either way you look at it they got the majority vote. Even through the more favourable PR.
In this section I want to discuss how they won over that majority.
Playground Politics.
They basically made a mockery out of Ed Miliband by posting front page news with full page blown up pictures of him eating a sandwich in an, admittedly, poor way. They slated every move he made! As well as this they used the SNP and possible maybe coalition with Labour as a fear tactic and, because the Tories own about 70% of UK newspapers, it worked. They successfully bullied the people of Britain into voting for them.
WHERE TO GO FROM HERE
The most important thing we can do over the next few weeks is keep talking about it! Keep protesting this system that allows room for oppression and bullying and immature politics. In the long term, if this doesn't work out, the best idea I can fathom for those who aren't planning on leaving the UK and starting an underground DJ group in Berlin (Like me and my friends Shannon, Rachael and Eric are planning on doing... We'll be called Holy Trinity feat. Steph incase you were wondering) the best idea I can think of, when all hope is lost and protesting is no longer happening, is to just sit tight, hope we as a country can get through this and, once it is over, in 5 years time, we can regroup and try to start something new.
I hope.
As always, comment below and let me know what you think and ask me any questions, stay open minded.
Steph
Thursday, 17 July 2014
Bye Bye Michael Gove.
Dearly Beloved, we are gathered here today to celebrate the firing of Michael Gove as the Education Secretary in the UK. He will not be sorely missed.
As I am sure my constant readers will know, I am not a fan of Mr Michael Gove as I think the only thing he can do is screw over the UK's education system. Luckily for us, he has stepped down and a new woman has stepped up to the plate for her chance at reforming education for the better.
Her name: Nicky Morgan
Her task: Fix the mess Gove has left her
Nicky Morgan has made her way into parliament very quickly, only being elected in 2010, but, thanks to David Cameron's cabinet reshuffle in a bid to win more votes, she has been promoted to Education Secretary. The Conservatives have never been great with allowing women onto the team, despite Margaret Thatcher (the only female Prime Minister we have ever had) being one of them. Morgan is one of only two mothers who are in the latest cabinet which I think is an outrage seeing as having a child and sending it through the education system would give our politicians a better idea of what we go through... That being said most Torys end up going to private school anyway.
On the subject of Conservatives' belief system she has spoken against her party in saying that they need to "hate less" Morgan said in January the party needed to have a more constructive message than simply: "we're against this, we're anti-that, we don't like them, we don't want them here, we don't want them doing this." This, for me, makes her seem like a great choice for the person helping out the future generations.
However, things are not all peachy keen with the new Education Secretary. She voted against Gay marriage stating that: "I totally support civil partnerships and that same-sex relationships are recognised in law. But marriage, to me, is between a man and a woman." and she has also campaigned for the upper limit of abortion to go down from 24 weeks to 20 weeks.
Overall, I think the only thing we can do, despite me disagreeing with some of her morals, is wait and see if she can clean up the mess before the 2015 elections mean Cameron and his archaic party get the boot.
As always, thanks for listening and feel free to give me your own opinions below.
Stephanie.
As I am sure my constant readers will know, I am not a fan of Mr Michael Gove as I think the only thing he can do is screw over the UK's education system. Luckily for us, he has stepped down and a new woman has stepped up to the plate for her chance at reforming education for the better.
Her name: Nicky Morgan
Her task: Fix the mess Gove has left her
Nicky Morgan has made her way into parliament very quickly, only being elected in 2010, but, thanks to David Cameron's cabinet reshuffle in a bid to win more votes, she has been promoted to Education Secretary. The Conservatives have never been great with allowing women onto the team, despite Margaret Thatcher (the only female Prime Minister we have ever had) being one of them. Morgan is one of only two mothers who are in the latest cabinet which I think is an outrage seeing as having a child and sending it through the education system would give our politicians a better idea of what we go through... That being said most Torys end up going to private school anyway.
On the subject of Conservatives' belief system she has spoken against her party in saying that they need to "hate less" Morgan said in January the party needed to have a more constructive message than simply: "we're against this, we're anti-that, we don't like them, we don't want them here, we don't want them doing this." This, for me, makes her seem like a great choice for the person helping out the future generations.
However, things are not all peachy keen with the new Education Secretary. She voted against Gay marriage stating that: "I totally support civil partnerships and that same-sex relationships are recognised in law. But marriage, to me, is between a man and a woman." and she has also campaigned for the upper limit of abortion to go down from 24 weeks to 20 weeks.
Overall, I think the only thing we can do, despite me disagreeing with some of her morals, is wait and see if she can clean up the mess before the 2015 elections mean Cameron and his archaic party get the boot.
As always, thanks for listening and feel free to give me your own opinions below.
Stephanie.
Sunday, 22 June 2014
My Relationship with a Working Mother
My mother is a retail worker, always has been, probably always will be. I don't have the normal relationship with my mother most teenagers have with their parents, but that doesn't make it any less special to me.
Let me explain.
This is a very personal topic for me to address online, but I feel that society often thinks of the types of relationships you can have with one or both of your parents is either very loving and providing or abusive and disconnected. For me, this hasn't been the case.
For as long as I can remember I have always wanted more attention from my mum than I receive, this comes partly from the amount of children she had to raise (3 from my father's previous marriage for a while and then 4 of her own) and the fact that both of my full-brothers have behaviour problems. Add onto that that I am one of the middle children, the results are conclusive, I didn't receive that much attention.
I am not saying in anyway that my mother neglected me, she was brilliant, kind and, above all, she cared for all of her children and this is where the problem lay. Whilst my mum was out working I would be in school, but when we (me and my siblings) were all old enough to walk home and be left at home on our own my mother would take on longer hours and would work for more days so that she could afford to send us all on school trips, buy our clothes, food etc.
During the first four years of my life my mum and dad went through a divorce, I have never been able to remember my dad being a full-time part of my life and a part of me will always grieve that, but we still went round to his for the weekends and slept over every other weekend (Boys one week, girls the next and so on). For my mum this meant 4 hours of peace (which usually meant housework) and then only half the kids to deal with for a night. This did result in me getting more attention than I would usually so I was happier with that, but I never really cared or realised this was as good as it got.
At the time this was all happening I was blissfully unaware of how it would affect my relationship with my mother, as she strove to make sure I had the same chances all the other kids had, in the future.
Now I bring you to present day.
I am working every Saturday, at least, for four hours, earning my own money so my mum doesn't have to take on the hours at work to provide for the family as I can now provide for myself, but she still does because she still insists that I don't have to pay any rent for living under her roof (Despite my offers of money) this is why I say, my mum's intentions have only ever been to care for her children.
However, I would argue me and my mum have a relationship with no obvious signs of love. If you were on the outside looking in the only thing that really connects us is the way we look similar. I love my mum more than anyone else in the world and I am thankful for every day I get to spend with her, but it isn't something we say to each other a lot.
Me and my mum don't sit and gossip about who I like, who is annoying me, any boys or girls on the horizon for my love life. She isn't always there for me when I need a shoulder to cry on and I can't rely on my siblings for help as the only two who live with me are younger and don't really understand. I can't vent when I get home if something happened at college that has particularly set off a nerve because I do the dinner every night for my family and, yes, sometimes I feel like a second mum, but without the financial burden. When my sister wouldn't go to school I sat down with her to find out why it was she didn't want to go in and convinced her to go in the end.
I don't want my mum to feel bad for this happening, but the fact is, it does and I understand while I am the one my sister might choose to go to when it comes to emotional support, without my mum I wouldn't have been able to go on all of the school trips I went on and I probably wouldn't have my friends I have now as the independence and confidence I have gained from taking on the role in my family I have taken on is a huge part of my personality.
I digress.
The point is, me and my mum have a complicated relationship that works as almost equals, until I do something wrong then she is the parent and what she says goes. All I can hope for is that, once I have moved out and my siblings are earning their own money, my mum can cut back her working hours and relax because she has done so much for me and I couldn't possibly thank her enough.
As I am literally crying I say to you, find someone you love and tell them. I am trying to build up a new relationship with my mum where I can go to her for gossip sessions like my friends inform me they do with their respective guardians or find the time to sit with her and chat, but it is hard work and I think people are often too focused on their own lives to look at the relationships they hold with those closest to them.
As always if you have any questions then feel free to ask me,
Until next time,
Stephanie
Let me explain.
This is a very personal topic for me to address online, but I feel that society often thinks of the types of relationships you can have with one or both of your parents is either very loving and providing or abusive and disconnected. For me, this hasn't been the case.
For as long as I can remember I have always wanted more attention from my mum than I receive, this comes partly from the amount of children she had to raise (3 from my father's previous marriage for a while and then 4 of her own) and the fact that both of my full-brothers have behaviour problems. Add onto that that I am one of the middle children, the results are conclusive, I didn't receive that much attention.
I am not saying in anyway that my mother neglected me, she was brilliant, kind and, above all, she cared for all of her children and this is where the problem lay. Whilst my mum was out working I would be in school, but when we (me and my siblings) were all old enough to walk home and be left at home on our own my mother would take on longer hours and would work for more days so that she could afford to send us all on school trips, buy our clothes, food etc.
During the first four years of my life my mum and dad went through a divorce, I have never been able to remember my dad being a full-time part of my life and a part of me will always grieve that, but we still went round to his for the weekends and slept over every other weekend (Boys one week, girls the next and so on). For my mum this meant 4 hours of peace (which usually meant housework) and then only half the kids to deal with for a night. This did result in me getting more attention than I would usually so I was happier with that, but I never really cared or realised this was as good as it got.
At the time this was all happening I was blissfully unaware of how it would affect my relationship with my mother, as she strove to make sure I had the same chances all the other kids had, in the future.
Now I bring you to present day.
I am working every Saturday, at least, for four hours, earning my own money so my mum doesn't have to take on the hours at work to provide for the family as I can now provide for myself, but she still does because she still insists that I don't have to pay any rent for living under her roof (Despite my offers of money) this is why I say, my mum's intentions have only ever been to care for her children.
However, I would argue me and my mum have a relationship with no obvious signs of love. If you were on the outside looking in the only thing that really connects us is the way we look similar. I love my mum more than anyone else in the world and I am thankful for every day I get to spend with her, but it isn't something we say to each other a lot.
Me and my mum don't sit and gossip about who I like, who is annoying me, any boys or girls on the horizon for my love life. She isn't always there for me when I need a shoulder to cry on and I can't rely on my siblings for help as the only two who live with me are younger and don't really understand. I can't vent when I get home if something happened at college that has particularly set off a nerve because I do the dinner every night for my family and, yes, sometimes I feel like a second mum, but without the financial burden. When my sister wouldn't go to school I sat down with her to find out why it was she didn't want to go in and convinced her to go in the end.
I don't want my mum to feel bad for this happening, but the fact is, it does and I understand while I am the one my sister might choose to go to when it comes to emotional support, without my mum I wouldn't have been able to go on all of the school trips I went on and I probably wouldn't have my friends I have now as the independence and confidence I have gained from taking on the role in my family I have taken on is a huge part of my personality.
I digress.
The point is, me and my mum have a complicated relationship that works as almost equals, until I do something wrong then she is the parent and what she says goes. All I can hope for is that, once I have moved out and my siblings are earning their own money, my mum can cut back her working hours and relax because she has done so much for me and I couldn't possibly thank her enough.
As I am literally crying I say to you, find someone you love and tell them. I am trying to build up a new relationship with my mum where I can go to her for gossip sessions like my friends inform me they do with their respective guardians or find the time to sit with her and chat, but it is hard work and I think people are often too focused on their own lives to look at the relationships they hold with those closest to them.
As always if you have any questions then feel free to ask me,
Until next time,
Stephanie
Tuesday, 29 April 2014
Demonisation of the Working Class
So the class system has been around in the UK for centuries and one of the biggest issues isn't to do with the money, as I first thought, but the horrible sense of elitism that stems from the class system being so segregated.
In the UK we have "chavs" who are, by urban dictionary definition: "a young lower-class person typified by brash and loutish behaviour and the wearing of (real or imitation) designer clothes." In England chavs are often described as dangers to society. And, yes, this type of person does exist.
My problem comes from the stereotype that all working class people are chavs and this is what makes the working class seem like they are not worth the time or money the government gives them.
I am working class. I have friends who are both working and middle class, but they don't label me as a chav or not their equal. (At least I hope not) So why does this stigma arise from?
One reason the working class are often seen as unable to be treated the same as upper or middle class is from the Industrialisation of Britain. We did it rather badly to be completely honest. We segregated the lower classes as the working force from the middle class business men very early. From this came the stigma that we are dirty, we cannot afford nice things, we are awful people that can't cope with the class labels and that eventually developed into the stereotypical "chav" that we see hiding in the alleyways between shops, desperately smoking their last drag of the day before they have to head back to school.
Another reason this subculture developed is because the working class are less fortunate. I speak from experience when I say that watching my mum miss meals so I could be fed and clothed for school the next day was heartbreaking. She still takes 48 hours of minimum wage work a week to help pay for my college fees and tries her hardest to book one holiday for us to go on a year to the next beach town over, but none of this compares to the look of dismay when I had to tell her the reason I had that bruise on my arm was from the boy at the back of the class who called me a chav and told me my family smelt weird. This label chased me through to the end of secondary school.
I wouldn't put myself into the chav subculture purely because I wouldn't consider myself "loutish" and I don't wear designer clothes at all really, imitation or otherwise. I do think chavs as a culture exists, but I don't think they are as common as the ruling classes would have you believe, nor are they a big problem to society, all they want is a little less class discrimination and the bitterness could end with this generation.
Please feel free to leave any comments or ask any questions.
Until next time,
Stephanie
In the UK we have "chavs" who are, by urban dictionary definition: "a young lower-class person typified by brash and loutish behaviour and the wearing of (real or imitation) designer clothes." In England chavs are often described as dangers to society. And, yes, this type of person does exist.
My problem comes from the stereotype that all working class people are chavs and this is what makes the working class seem like they are not worth the time or money the government gives them.
I am working class. I have friends who are both working and middle class, but they don't label me as a chav or not their equal. (At least I hope not) So why does this stigma arise from?
One reason the working class are often seen as unable to be treated the same as upper or middle class is from the Industrialisation of Britain. We did it rather badly to be completely honest. We segregated the lower classes as the working force from the middle class business men very early. From this came the stigma that we are dirty, we cannot afford nice things, we are awful people that can't cope with the class labels and that eventually developed into the stereotypical "chav" that we see hiding in the alleyways between shops, desperately smoking their last drag of the day before they have to head back to school.
Another reason this subculture developed is because the working class are less fortunate. I speak from experience when I say that watching my mum miss meals so I could be fed and clothed for school the next day was heartbreaking. She still takes 48 hours of minimum wage work a week to help pay for my college fees and tries her hardest to book one holiday for us to go on a year to the next beach town over, but none of this compares to the look of dismay when I had to tell her the reason I had that bruise on my arm was from the boy at the back of the class who called me a chav and told me my family smelt weird. This label chased me through to the end of secondary school.
I wouldn't put myself into the chav subculture purely because I wouldn't consider myself "loutish" and I don't wear designer clothes at all really, imitation or otherwise. I do think chavs as a culture exists, but I don't think they are as common as the ruling classes would have you believe, nor are they a big problem to society, all they want is a little less class discrimination and the bitterness could end with this generation.
Please feel free to leave any comments or ask any questions.
Until next time,
Stephanie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)