Friday, March 27, 2009

The pleasures and sorrows of work (with apologies to Alain de Botton)


I exist in two different dimensions or modes of being. One is when I have no work. The other is when I have some. I am two different selves in these separate universes and what I love best is hanging around in the hallway between the two, anticipating work and enjoying my precious hours of freedom.

When I have no work, which is often at the moment, I am free. I’m in control of my life; admin tasks are done when I feel like it. I get around to clearing my in tray and my email inbox. I freewheel a bit. I walk my sister's dog Jordan any time in the morning that feels right. I work on my blogs. I have long discussions with my friend Simon, a semi-retired semi-single leftie (he thinks this term is obsolete, and prefers to be called 'progressive') about the travesty that is Australian politics.

I start to focus on the small things. Why haven’t I finished scrubbing the mildew-ridden kitchen ceiling, as my anally retentive property manager ‘advised’ me to do? Isn’t the garage horribly cluttered? Why don’t I ever get enough sleep? Why does everybody around me have more money than I do?

I start to worry about money. Perhaps I’ll never work again. What will happen as my savings run down? What about the far-flung future? I’ll be old and unlovable and poor. I go to Target and console myself with a bargain or two. I wait like Penelope for the money to come through from my last job. I abuse the accounts people when they send it to the wrong account (well I did on Thursday and for this and all my sins I am very sorry, and embarrassed).

I develop a low-level depression. I begin to feel disengaged from the world. At a family gathering some well-meaning rellie asks for the thousandth time whether it is hard to be disciplined working from home and I secretly snigger, thinking of my increasingly undisciplined ways and reply (I’m quite pleased with this reply because it hides a multitude of sins) that when the work comes in I do it quickly ’cos I want the money.

Then I get desperate. I resort to pleading with the universe for a small, do-able job that’s within my comfort zone. And I stoop to a new age trick that works every time – I visualise people delivering wads of $100 bills to my door on trolleys, so many wads of green bills that the spare room is chock-full of them. I see myself in this room, dancing around and laughing as I wildly throw bills in the air.

It works every time. But only too well. This time two new jobs came through one after the other, and I burnt my new-ish, favourite saucepan.

There was no lovely in-between anticipation of work. I was right in the middle of juggling and my other self, my other mode of being, stepped in.

I need to explain that something truly terrible happened to me once I became a freelance editor. I have always been angst and anxiety ridden in many-faceted ways, and my difficulties coping with colleagues in the workplace gradually made things worse. So I chose freelancing as a way to avoid this and it seemed to work for a while.

But sadly, the difficult life of a freelancer doing major editing jobs (books, training modules, CD-ROMs) seems to have sensitised me to work-related stress. Now it’s the work I dread, and the accompanying physical and emotional exhaustion. It’s almost intolerable for me to have a large job, for instance one running over three weeks, hanging over my head. Jobs must be small and manageable.

So I just don’t do the big jobs any more. Which is a shame because that’s where the money is.

But right now I am juggling two smallish jobs. And already I’ve burnt a saucepan. What next? Last night I watched a snippet of a late-night movie in which the main character was driving distractedly and crashed into the car ahead. Immediately I started thinking about how complicated my life would be if I had a similar bingle with these two jobs still unfinished.

Sleep is becoming more difficult. There’s work to be done goddam it, says my overdeveloped superego. I’ve started to worry about what will happen as the jobs continue and I get more sleep deprived.

And the most difficult thing. I've started thinking about every single small undone job in my life as well as future routine tasks and every one of them MUST BE DONE NOW. Well, sort of. I ignore this, but what I’m ignoring is a parcel of dread at the thought of my still-untreated warts, the bill I forgot to pay on Friday, the hours that a hair appointment on Thursday will take out of my busy work day, my future neglect of Jordan.

So I guess in the midst of this I’ll knuckle down and do the work. But if anyone reading has any suggestions apart from meditating (sadly I can’t meditate when I am in this state – there’s work to be done!) they’ll be very welcome.

(photo courtesy of Freeimages)

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

A tale of two talk show hosts


At 11.30 pm or thereabouts I can be found clutching the remote and flicking restlessly between two talk shows: the Late Show with David Letterman and the Ellen DeGeneres Show. Could there be two TV hosts further apart in style and, well, substance? I could write a book on the glaring contrasts between them.

I have to admit at the outset that I have developed a little girly crush on Ellen. This woman is so often surrounded by stereotypically boosted Hollywood beauties and it’s to her credit that she’s never succumbed to the standard look, by getting a nose job for example.

But away from the overly ravishing, she really is quite beautiful herself, with huge, deep-set eyes, a strong chin and a cute, engaging smile. Her cheeks glow with the kind of good health only the super-rich can aspire to: she probably has her own in-house macrobiotic chef and yoga instructor (she’s talked about how practising yoga has helped her slow down, and she's also a vegan).

Despite my crush the show itself doesn’t grab me (except for the beginning bit which I’ll describe shortly). It’s full of inane games played by excitable audience members, and quirky guests who demonstrate their unusual skills. The whole thing is a weird combination of embodied 1980s feminism, quiz show hysteria and celebrity self-congratulation – tempered, thank god, by DeGeneres’s ability to make fun of herself (which the more famous Oprah could benefit from). The whole look of the set is light and minimalist – it’s probably played as a daytime show in the US.

There’s no doubt that in a country crippled by homophobic religiosity, DeGeneres, an out lesbian, is a phenomenon. The audience adores her, and no, they’re not all bulldykes in motorcycle leathers, just average, mostly heterosexual women with mortgages, as well as a few men. I didn’t realise the extent of her popularity until she had Portia De Rossi, her spouse, on the show (not literally of course).

Portia (who was another pleasant surprise: gangly, shy and skittish, and they sang ‘I got you babe’ at the end) complained that on their honeymoon, fans were constantly greeting DeGeneres while having no idea who Portia was.

DeGeneres has graced a bevy of magazine covers, including Ladies Home Journal, People and W (the headline was 'Ellen: America's Unlikely New It Girl) and last year signed a $1 million advertising deal with Cover Girl.

So what’s the secret of Ellen’s popularity (somehow you want to call her Ellen and not DeGeneres)? One reason might be her style. She dresses in a deliberately non-feminine way: not all that butch though, more androgynous, owing much to the Annie Hall phenomenon of the mid-seventies. She favours loose, comfortable-looking but perfectly fitted and styled pants, loosely fitting vests or beautifully cut jackets over unstructured but expensive-looking shirts that she doesn’t tuck in, and sneakers.

I have a probably unprovable hypothesis about the appeal to heterosexual/femme women of this type of androgyny. Almost all girls start out being boyish and then have to give up their tomboy selves to become women. They therefore find androgynous women attractive because they’re reminded of the part of themselves they’ve lost.

But of course the clothing’s only relevant to the extent that it expresses the inner woman. DeGeneres is fun loving, winning, warm, witty, quick. Celebrities, it is said, sell images of themselves. DeGeneres is no exception – her down-to-earth warmth and chumminess are nothing less than a brand – but perhaps that brand happens to be more in sync with the reality than, say, the personality of Oprah Winfrey. She exudes warmth rather than just putting it on. To tell you the truth, I don’t find her screamingly funny, but her wit is quick and sure and she’s constantly coming up with fast one-liners.

Now, I just need to quickly explain what I love about the beginning of the show. It always includes DeGeneres dancing among the audience members. She shimmies up the stairs of the seating area, down one of the rows, and back down to the set, before limbo-ing over (if that’s possible) the coffee table in front of her seat and settling herself down in it.

When she starts dancing the audience gets up and dances in their places and she has a brief boogie with one or two as she goes past (eliciting screams of excitement). I’ve never seen her style of dancing before and it’s hard to explain but it involves swinging each shoulder forward alternately while her hands are on her thighs, and gives new meaning to the word cute. When Portia came on the show she danced in the same way, but more awkwardly: my guess is she’s copied DeGeneres because she found her dance style so endearing.

This little ritual reminds me of nothing so much as the way, at the few women’s collective meetings I attended in the mid-1980s, everyone would get up halfway through the meeting to have a good stretch. It was a reminder not to forget your body, not to be too abstract about life.

Of course the show will not make the world safe for women, or men for that matter. In a recession-ravaged USA, DeGeneres plays Lady Bountiful, changing the world one mortgage-stressed audience member at a time. The presents for winners of the kooky games are extremely generous: gift vouchers worth thousands of dollars, exotic holidays. To that extent DeGeneres is pushing the virtues of materialism and luck as much as any TV show host.

David Letterman couldn’t be more different. Even the set is different: much darker colour scheme, blown-up image of Manhattan at night as a backdrop, and Letterman sitting behind a desk instead of a coffee table.

The first time I tuned in I wondered what people saw in him. He seemed slightly bored with the whole process, as if he’d been doing it too long. Crusty, rude, dry, he doesn’t even pretend to be anything but jaded and cynical. A comedian like DeGeneres, he’s extremely quick with the one-liners.

The weird thing is if you’re desperate enough to watch (and there’s nothing else decent on at that hour besides DeGeneres) you get used to his personality, just as you put up with the unwelcome quirks of colleagues and family members. In fact the dryness and world-weariness are welcome in the often saccharine world of US entertainment. (The word on the street is that what charm there is in Letterman’s persona gets turned off during ad breaks. At least his world-weariness is genuine.)

I freely admit that Letterman’s segments are marginally funnier than DeGeneres’s. A segment that recently got the chop for obvious reasons was ‘Great moments in presidential speeches’; this played clips from old, truly great presidential speeches followed by a humorous gaffe by George Bush. (Letterman’s hatred of Bush is one of his redeeming features.) I also have to admit that sometimes at least, Letterman’s guests are often more high profile than those of DeGeneres and the interviews slightly more in-depth (if that term can ever apply to a talk show interview).

But something I never get used to is the man’s brazen sexism. Last night he made a horrible joke about Pamela Anderson, comparing her to a caravan that sleeps four. But he’s just as awful with his female guests, at least the ones wearing skimpy evening dresses (and that means most of them). He kisses their hands in an icky way and sometimes expresses his desire for them – yuk. During an interview with one lissome guest, I could hardly believe it when he claimed to be getting distracted by her attractive legs.

There’s a double standard here of course. Letterman is allowed to slobber over his guests while DeGeneres must be clean, girl-next-door, strictly chummy. She freely talks about Portia, and the joys of marriage, which is nice. But if she actually expressed lesbian desire, told one of her female guests she had a crush on her, what would the consequences be for her career? (She told Paul Rudd recently she’d had a ‘safe crush’ on him in the past – what could be safer than the crush of a married lesbian on a man)?

But perhaps the point is that we don’t want our female talk show hosts to be like Letterman. The goal of equality is not for women to be as misogynistic and sexist as patriarchal men. We want an alternative. I think DeGeneres knows this. I can’t help thinking that a combination of the two shows, with a slightly edgier DeGeneres asking more incisive questions, ditching the silly games and bringing in some less puerile humour, would be perfect.

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Depraved, deprived, deloused


Life is such a mixture of the routine and mundane, and the quietly revelatory. It's a force that shows me the aspects of its own nature that I need to understand. Every now and then an incident happens which seems to reveal to me something about myself or the world that I needed to know. But the information is not always welcome.

Yesterday, as I do every Wednesday, I took my sister’s golden cocker spaniel Jordan to the nearby Ainslie Park. We ambled along in the mild morning sunshine, Jordan stubbornly halting to read his pee-mails (and leave one or two) on the way.

We soon reached the park oval and after we’d been on it for a while another regular, Sarah, came up with her blue heeler cross, Rufus. He’s a sweet-tempered five-year-old with an obsession for the ball. He occasionally gets annoyed by Jordan’s persistent invitations to play, but this day they bounded around together like old drinking buddies as I watched in delight.

Sarah was polite but distant and, as is my socially phobic wont, I wondered if it was something I’d said or done last time. If I made a remark she responded but in the past she’d been much more open. The conversation just never got off the ground, although at no stage was she rude. I remembered that I’d seen her being cool and distant with someone else and wondered if she was like that with most people. Perhaps she was just preoccupied?

Suddenly Rufus raced across the oval, towards the water tap for dogs near the tennis courts. Jordan bounded after him and I went over to supervise while Sarah stayed on the oval. By this stage the two dogs were sniffing around the wide bushy garden beds that flank the sides of the park. Sarah started calling Rufus. I didn’t even think to grab him; he’s an older, usually obedient dog. Instead I grabbed Jordan’s collar so he wouldn’t lead Rufus further astray.

Sarah kept calling. Suddenly Rufus disappeared behind the tennis courts. There’s a long narrow path overhung with squashed-in trees that runs between the tennis courts and the side fence, and leads to the other end of the park. Sarah followed Rufus down the path and didn’t come back. I assumed they’d both gone home, and took Jordan back to the oval for another short play.

He sat himself down under the shade of a huge oak. I threw the old tennis ball and yelled ‘Fetch!’ He stood and stared for a second and then inexplicably turned and ran back towards the narrow pathway. In seconds he’d disappeared.

It didn’t make sense to me. It should have. He was running after Rufus, following his scent. And Rufus was on his way home, to a flat in the same nearby, busy street that my sister, Jordan’s owner, lives on.

If I’d worked this out much earlier things might have been less, well, hairy.

Instead, I slowly made my way down the narrow path, calling his name, sure he would have been waylaid by a juicy, overwhelming smell. But the air was thin and bleak with absence. By the time I got to the end of the park near the fenced-in play area the undulating lawns were bare of him. I ran around the front part of the park, up the white stony path, yelling his name. Despite the few kids playing on the plastic swings and slides the place felt chilly, empty, deserted.

Then I realised that the impossible had happened – he'd left the park.

Suddenly I was running along the path to the entrance. And then I saw him, trotting along the gravel walkway, across from Ainslie Road, that leads away from the park. He was walking steadily towards Wattle Road. He’d already crossed the quiet Ainslie Rd, still in search of Rufus. He is clueless when it comes to roads and cars. If he got as far as Wattle Road he'd be cactus.

I ran faster, screaming his name, not giving a shit how it looked, crossing Ainslie Rd at a clip. ‘Is it a dog or a kid?’ I heard a workman on a nearby house speculating. I got onto the walkway and screamed at him to come.

And he stopped. Miraculously, he stopped. He stood there, staring at me with that daffy smile on his face, mouth hanging open, his skinny, cute, overly long legs jutting out at not-quite-right angles from his little torso. He had that expression he adopts when he realises he’s gone too far: ‘Oh. How sweet. I guess I’ll humour you – you do sound a bit concerned.’

‘Come here!’ I yelled imperiously. ‘Come!’ And he trotted towards me although I was scowling and bearing down on him. He cowered when I went to put his leash on and I felt so sad for him: I wouldn’t have dreamed of smacking him. But I was furious. He’d scared the hell out of me. I wanted him to know that I was angry, to understand it. ‘Bad dog’, I scolded as I pulled him along. ‘Very bad to run away. I’m very angry’.

When we got to my sister’s place and inside the gate I took his leash off and he looked around and began to run in front of me, ready for me to throw the ball. But there would be no post-walk play today (and of course we’d left the ball at the park). ‘I don’t want to play with you. Bad dog. I’m very angry.’

I eventually stroked his hair and tried to explain to him what he’d done as if he was a kid and could understand, and then closed the front gate behind me. As I drove away he was staring at me through the slats of the fence.

I had mixed feelings. As usual I wanted to save him from the long lonely hours he’d be sitting out till my sister got home. I also wanted him to understand that he’d done something naughty, and suffer a little bit. But his loneliness is an unfair punishment for being alive that he must bear every day anyway. Why should I make him suffer more? And if his most loving aunty is cold to him, where is love to be found?

It would be clear to a tree stump that Jordan badly needs training, and that he’s undersocialised in both the human world and the dog world. I’ve written in this blog before of my concerns for his ‘welfare’ – he’s in a family who aren’t really ‘dog people’ and, as far as I’m concerned, emotionally neglect him. (In the words of one of the delinquents in West Side Story, he’s ‘depraved on account he’s deprived’.)

I don’t think he gets to the park much apart from our walks, certainly not when there’s a lot of dogs around who could knock him into shape and teach him what's what in the dog world. He ran after Rufus because he was starved of doggy energy. And if Jordan was a wild dog he’d be exercising his independence by now -- who could blame him for wanting a bit of freedom, a walk on the wild side?

But a domesticated dog is part of the human world and must, to some extent, put such notions aside. Jordan urgently needs training to know his role in this world, so different from the doggy world, not least for his own safety. Dogs give up the use of some of their instincts to be companions to us and Jordan is no exception. But if we don’t give them a ton of love in return they won’t want to make this sacrifice and won’t know how to even if they’re willing.

And this is where the idea of revelation comes in. No matter how much I plead with my sister, he’s not going to get the training he needs, and I can’t afford to pay for it. We do have a short training session the three times a week I walk him, but he’s not the brains trust and he really needs daily training.

I like to think of myself as Jordan’s mentor, and to believe I’m helping him. And I do help him somewhat just by being there. But I can’t transform his life as I’d like to; he’s going to stay emotionally immature for a long while. We’re both powerless in some areas of our lives, Jordan and I. All I can do is make the most of our time together.

I also need to stop kidding myself that he has any idea of what a park is, or what an oval is. All he knows is that we go to a joyful place of smelly, hairy friends; and that when they leave, it’s lonely.

Photo courtesy of Bigfoto (http://www.bigfoto.com/)

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Appalling pollies


Following politics in even the most basic way in Australia leads inexorably to existential despair. Certain questions spring to mind: ‘How can supposedly intelligent people (ie politicians) say and do such stupid things, things that are so obviously contrary to common sense, not to mention democratic principles?’ ‘Why is the mismanagement of government functions like public transport now routine?’

Just one example is the Formula One Grand Prix that the good town of Melbourne ‘hosts’ in March each year - coming up soon, on 26-29 March. This year the state of Victoria is paying Formula One CEO Bernie Ecclestone about $47 million for the privilege. The exact figure is secret despite the fact that it’s taxpayers’ money, but The Age newspaper did some foraging and produced the estimation. This year, because of the drying up of sponsorship due to the recession, the entire cost of hosting the Grand Prix is estimated to be $50 million!

The Auditor-General’s report on the 2007 Grand Prix found that, after benefits to business and tourism were taken into account and issues such as traffic jams and noise were factored in, there was a net loss to Victoria of somewhere between $800,000 and $13.4 million.

The venue for Melbourne’s Grand Prix was determined with an outrageous disregard for community rights and sentiment. It’s held at the Albert Park Reserve, only about 3 kilometres from the CBD, one of the few Grand Prix events to be held in an inner city location.

According to the Save Albert Park group, Albert Park is the only major area of open space in the municipality of Port Phillip; it’s certainly the largest. It includes more than 20 grounds for various field sports and hosts a golf club, as well as tennis and bowling clubs.

For four months of the year, the most popular months weather-wise, key roads are closed leading to traffic delays and use of the park is disrupted by preparations for the Grand Prix, which turns parts of the park into a huge construction site complete with the coming and going of trucks. And during the race, residents have to put up with blocked-off streets, traffic disruptions and the constant high-pitched whine of the dangerously loud cars.

The carbon footprint of the event is also high.

Port Phillip’s local council is against the race. But the park is under the jurisdiction of the state government. And in July 2008 the government announced a new deal that would keep the race in Melbourne until at least 2015.

When the race first came to Melbourne in 1996 under the previous Liberal (right-wing) government, many Melburnians were outraged when the venue chosen by the dictatorial Jeff Kennett was the Albert Park. (Kennett’s crash-through style would eventually give rise to the neologism to be 'Jeffed’).

Facilities and roughly 1000 trees were demolished with over 400 trees felled on one day alone (funds were provided for replacement facilities but sportsgrounds are unusable for months at a time). Concerned citizens protested in front of bulldozers, and at one point were forcibly moved by police.

Holding the Grand Prix in the park would have been illegal. To make it possible, the Liberal government passed the Australian Grand Prix Act 1994, to the outrage of lawyers’ associations, civil liberties and environmental groups. The scope of this Act is simply extraordinary.

Among other things, it removes the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court from the operations of the Act, and gives the Australian Grand Prix Corporation total control of the park – it can cordon off any area it wants, demolish any building, close roads and cut down trees at will.

The wily Labor Party, which as the opposition had initially supported the Save Albert Park group, kept the race as part of its major events program when it came to power in 1999.

According to the state government, the benefits to local businesses of hosting the Grand Prix make the huge cost worthwhile, but the figures it uses to back this are considered dodgy by some. The National Institute of Economic and Industry Research calculated the net benefit of the 2005 race to be $174.8 million. But the methodology used by the NIER has been challenged by some economists.

Meanwhile attendance numbers have been dropping since the race started, with what appears to be a very slight increase last year over the 2007 figure (although the AGPC figures are highly dodgy and include the free tickets they throw around to boost the numbers). Meanwhile there is an avoidance factor -- many local residents go away for the Grand Prix event, taking their business with them, and some protesters claim that hotel reservations actually drop during the weekend the race is run.

Such is Ecclestone’s power that the Melbourne Grand Prix is the equivalent of someone knocking on your front door and saying: ‘I’d like to run a foot race around your loungeroom, and you’ll have to throw out your lounge suite – is that OK? Oh, and by the way, you’re going to have to pay me really big money’.

This is just one example of the corroding of democracy under governments of all stripes in the last 15 years or so, at both state and federal level. The other glaring one on the state level is Melbourne’s appalling public transport. The government outsources the running of public transport to private companies, in particular Connex (trains) and Yarra Trams (trams). Again, the supposedly Labor Government continued the privatisation that the previous government had started, despite admitting recently that it actually saves no money!

Public transport’s never been good in Melbourne but things got worse when petrol prices rose and people wanted to cut their greenhouse emissions. They crowded onto the inadequate train system in droves and now widespread train cancellations, commuters being left stranded for hours on platforms and being squashed into overcrowded trains are the norm.

But this actually suits the government. It doesn’t have to do anything or take responsibility: it simply blames Connex for the problems. Connex plays the part of whipping boy and in return gleefully shovels away its huge profits and sends them back to France.

In future posts I’ll look at why such ridiculous government decisions are becoming the norm, and some possible solutions.

Friday, March 13, 2009

Familial angst

Lately I have been wondering if my blog should be called very nutty rather than slightly nutty.

As usual at times like this my thoughts turn to my family but not in a good way. I’m full of blame, angst and bile.

The thing is I am caught between two competing positions. The first is that my parents are responsible for scrambling my brain and therefore should do everything within their power, alter their lives in significant ways if need be, to assist me (even though they’re now in their 70s – shouldn’t I be assisting them? – but this is no longer a new position for me).

This position sees my mental illness as no different from a physical one. What if I had been confined to a wheelchair? They couldn’t have ignored the problem even if they’d wanted to. Imagine the ignominy, the opprobrium of their many parish friends if they had done nothing to help me, say by placing me in a home. And of course they wouldn’t have done such a thing. But their lives would have been different – harder, with less time for socialising (they are deeply social people, and in my mother’s case more bonded with friends than immediate family).

My parents have always been extremely uncomfortable with my mental illness because acknowledging it fully would have opened up too many cans of worms. They have therefore never been able to intervene in any significant way to ‘save’ me (more of saving later). At a critical time in my life – the age of 15 – they stood by as I went into a shell I would never fully emerge from (like an obedient child my illness took a form that was never dramatic enough to warrant hospitalisation).

In theory they have always offered sanctuary (ie allowed me to move back home, but very much on their terms) and when I had a breakdown at 21 my mother gave me a fair bit of emotional support. But they’ve never actively assisted me, apart from giving me the kind of practical help they give their other daughters, for example, when moving house. And since I’ve been living close by, my father to his great credit comes around on call to mow my lawns and do any handyperson tasks that I can’t.

So, when I take this position, how would I like my parents to be? My fantasy parents would have long ago renounced their Catholicism, spurning it because its rigid doctrines and twisted representatives had helped to bring about my emotional demise. Instead they would be exploring non-denominational spirituality. Needless to say, they would have come to terms with the fact that their basic incompatibility was a huge cause of my problems and would have reached a level of emotional maturity unthinkable if I had not been ill.

And decades ago they would have urged me to see a psychologist or psychiatrist (instead of the GP and gestalt therapist I mainly saw for years) and to pay for any expenses or at least helped. They would have gently pointed out that I was going to need to pursue a career that could be managed within my anxieties and offered to help financially with any study expenses.

And when they decided to buy an investment property ten years ago they would have bought one with an eye to me moving in there somewhere further down the track (paying rent of course, but with some degree of security). And long ago they would have come to terms with the fact that I probably wouldn’t get married, and given me a nice little payout equivalent to the cost of their other daughters’ weddings.

It’s such a lovely fantasy. Who would want to abandon it? I can’t, not completely. But let’s face it, it’s based on the lives of secular, middle class baby boomers. My parents are religious and more than half a generation older than baby boomers, their lives relatively untouched by feminism and the other social movements. Inexplicably, my father still enthusiastically attends events run by the Catholic, socially right-wing political organisation he so adored when I was a kid.

It also ignores the obvious – that some mental illnesses, or at least the way they present themselves, are the result of family dynamics. In my case, I think I was trying to adapt to some impossible contradictions in the family. So how could my parents possibly be part of the solution? We had one session of family therapy when I was 21 but it threatened to uncover some uncomfortable truths, and my mother put a stop to it.

But there is also another position. This position is partly based on new age ideas about responsibility but it’s also more grounded in psychotherapy. It says that on one level I am responsible for everything that happens to me (I can’t buy that completely) but, on a more mundane level, that I’m an adult and have to take responsibility for myself.

In fact, the last psychiatrist I saw, around five years ago, said at one point something to the effect of ‘isn’t it about time you laid off your parents?’

And this is the nub of it, the sticking point.

Because despite the bad start they gave me, despite the part they played in ‘stuffing me up’, I’d reached a point about ten years ago where I had grown in many ways, and could have made a very fundamental change in my life.

This was at at time when I had finally accessed some psychiatric help (far from perfect, but good in some ways) as well as spiritual help through a 12-step program. I understood that it was possible to go out on a limb – I had seen people in the program grow in amazing ways and take on new challenges. I also had plenty of people who could have helped me make this leap (in fact one of them belatedly tried to help me for weeks).

This leap would have freed me from my emotional reliance on my family, at least temporarily. And I chose not to make it.

Yes, it would have been incredibly difficult – for about 5 minutes. But I decided to play it safe.

Of course there had been many times earlier than that when in theory I could have broken away. But it really wasn’t possible before then. This was a genuine choice.

So I’m stuck between the two positions. I guess in some ways I have no choice but to take up the latter position – that I’m responsible for myself and my life. But this is very difficult at the moment because I can’t work or socialise much. I still equate work with taking responsibility, so if I can’t look after myself financially where do I stand?

Do I need to let go of that connection and see myself as still dignified even if the state is being a parent of sorts and helping me out financially? Of course, but it’s hard. It’s also hard because I believe very deeply that I am never going to be able to work in a way that frees me from this dependence. (Possibly this is in itself deluded but that is the way it feels at the moment.) And that makes me want to turn back around to my parents and shake my fist at them: ‘You caused all this! What are you going to do about it?’

And it’s also hard because I know that at one point things could have been different. I can’t really blame my parents for that, much as I’d like to.

So perhaps there is a dual responsibility? That still doesn’t change my parents’ behaviour or attitude towards me.

When I was in my mid-20s I assumed a faux sense of independence from my parents, convinced it was better that I asked nothing of them. This hid many unconscious resentments, and I slowly came to realise that they did indeed bear some responsibility. I’ve since accused them of all sorts of shortcomings. But that time of acute grief and anger is past. Although I may not stop feeling angry, I need to let go of the belief that some time in the future, they will look after me. There really is no choice now but to do so. That’s what I have to work on.

Sunday, March 8, 2009

Carlton forever


Yesterday I took a nostalgic trip to an old stamping ground, the buzzy inner city suburb of Carlton. ‘Suburb’ seems the wrong word to use, so intermeshed is Carlton with the city centre it borders. Carlton is awash with the past for me because I inexplicably left this suburb more than seven years ago.

Melbourne loves its inner suburbs but Carlton was one of the first to be gentrified. By the early 1980s, when I first went to the nearby Melbourne Uni, it was already too expensive for some first home buyers, and its bohemians and students were fleeing to the edgier Fitzroy next door, and cheaper suburbs to the north like Brunswick and Northcote (this surge further north has continued for members of Generation X, who can now barely afford to buy in far-flung suburbs like Reservoir).

Gentrified suburbs sometimes suffer a kind of living death and become museum-like. By some miracle Carlton is still alive.

It was an overwhelmingly working class suburb until the 1960s but had always attracted immigrants because of its closeness to the city centre and local factories.

Home to waves of Jewish settlers since the 19th century, it was a Jewish mecca until the 1950s. But in that decade it became known as ‘Little Italy’, the best-known destination of the wave of Italian immigrants who reached Australia after the Second World War. Lygon Street became a vibrant hub of Italian restaurants, cafes, butchers, tailors, delicatessens and culture, and one of the few places you could get ‘real coffee’ before cafe culture took off in Melbourne.

With Melbourne University next door, baby boomer students, academics and artists discovered Carlton in the 1960s and 70s and made its cafes and traditional watering holes their own. The footpaths filled with hippies and Carlton was home to the iconic Pram Factory theatre collective, in which many a now-famous writer and actor first argued over the finer points of Maoism.

In the 1980s the rest of Melbourne and the tourists discovered Lygon and on summer nights the street was thick with suburbanites seeking cheap pasta meals and real gelato, infinitely creamier and more flavoursome than the fizzy, icy stuff we had begged our parents to buy as children from Mr Whippy vans. Hoons roared their Monaros up and down the street into the wee hours.

Carlton's residential streets of humble workers cottages and posher double-storey terrace houses with their cast iron balconies were livelier then. Now these wide, pretty streets with their cobbled lanes have an unearthly quietness, protected by traffic barriers designed to keep cars at bay. There are whiffs of vanished communities though, invisible traces of the village atmosphere that the original subdivision created with its frequent small squares.

A distinctive element of Italian and Greek architecture is also still evident. Before the days of heritage bylaws Italians and Greeks had cart blanche to change their Victorian houses. They painted them in pastel colours like pale blue, and removed ornamentation and often entire verandas from facades. They built new brick fences with wrought iron panels and gates, and planted vegetables in the front yards, parts of which they often concreted. The results often have a stark, almost modernist flavour.

Today, lined with plane trees, Lygon Street still manages to be charming despite being colonised by the predictable 7-11 stores and a Safeway lodged downstairs in Lygon Court. This is a small mall that, though aesthetically sterile, is designed like an Italian piazza that’s integrated with the street. It houses the Nova cinema, which is able to run edgier arthouse films than its rivals because of the student population.

The most tourist-y part of Lygon Street is closest to the city, where waiters stand in front of once-stately terraces that are now overpriced tavernas with stereotypical red-and-white checked tablecloths, and spruik for patrons. The northern end has the bookshops, some upmarket fashion stores, and the crowded cafes with their well-trained baristas; some of the cafes, like Tiamos and the University Cafe, are legendary and still sell a battered ‘authenticity’ that Starbucks could only dream of.

Unwelcome changes continue of course: like the Pram Factory, the famous Carlton Moviehouse with its hard, uncomfortable seating (it was affectionately known as 'the bughouse’) is long gone, its business taken by the Nova. Borders moved in a few years ago like a giant piranha, threatening the hegemony of Readings, an independent bookstore which started small in Carlton during the 1970s and has now become a successful chain.

Thank god Readings maintained its identity, helped no doubt by the frequent author talks and launches it hosts. It’s still lacking elbow room on Sunday afternoons. And miraculously, the tiny, longstanding La Mama theatre, threatened by the twin perils of bureaucratic overreach and rising rent, has been saved due to a successful fundraising drive.

The families who can afford to live here now are likely to be those of corporate lawyers and financiers who want to be hip, and the students living here those whose parents are rich enough to help them out with the rent. But it’s the Melbourne Uni students overall, and the inhabitants of the highrise 'Housing Commission' flats that loom up behind the shopping centre -- from places like Eritrea, Somalia and China -- that keep the suburb lively and diverse.

There are two Carltons for me. The first is the Carlton of my undergraduate days when I could feel the hippies scattering to the four winds and the Pram Factory building was soon to be bulldozed to make way for the supermarket. The suburb felt pagan to me, it smelt of wild sex and adulthood. The second Carlton dates from the time when I moved there in 1995 from a mouldy flat in Northcote to complete a Masters degree at Melbourne Uni.

At the time I romanticised my lonely life, viewing myself as a cut-price Helen Garner because I had a bike and rode around a lot. But what I treasured most about Carlton then was its closeness to everything. It was a five-minute bike ride to the Nova cinema and only another five minutes to uni, a ten-minute bus trip to the city centre, and only a short stroll to Brunswick Street (once a hangout for radical young artists and now a place of rich young hippies and twenty- and thirty-something small business owners).

In a rather delightful coincidence I had joined a 12-step program not long before and the small community room where meetings were held in nearby Palmerston street became a safe haven where I made tentative friendships and started to manage my eating disorder.

It was a fluke that I made it to Carlton at all that second time. I only ‘got in’ because a friend of mine from the 12-step program was living in a small cottage near Rathdowne Street, one of Carlton’s thoroughfares. The cottage was becoming vacant and my friend promised to put in a good word for me. It was a one-bedroom cottage, attached to almost identical houses on each side, with a front verandah, small backyard and outdoor toilet. Much larger than the average one-bedroom flat, it was dirt cheap at $130 a week.

After five years, though, I was sick of traipsing to the outdoor dunny on rainy nights, sick of the rising damp, of the dark and the chill of the inflexible Victorian architecture. A recent fling had left me emotionally distraught and wanting a change. Then I got burgled because I didn’t want to spend what little money I had on security.

Not long afterwards two mynah birds came down the chimney and terrorised me until I shooed them out the front door and I was convinced it was some kind of sign (!) that I should leave. I was getting older, and wasn’t Carlton a young person’s suburb? Why not move back to leafier, quieter Northcote, home to hundreds of settled, dog-owning dykes?

The breathtaking stupidity of this decision still astounds me. While often lonely and isolated in Carlton, I was close to a million distractions and my small circle of friends. And I had just started as a freelancer, working on a large editing project with an experienced mentor and discovering the ridiculous number of hours I would have to work to make a decent living.

I barely had time to scratch myself, yet I decided to forge ahead with the move. I’d found a tiny flat in Northcote, round the corner from where I’d lived five years ago, just past the much more bourgeois Clifton Hill, and it was freshly painted and light, with fixtures that were not decades old. I would find a new me there.

I won’t go into detail about the resulting disaster. The night before I was due to move I quaked in my bed, surrounded by neatly packed boxes, the huge mistake I’d made slowly dawning on me. (I had been warned: so desperate had prospective tenants been that they hadn't bothered to go through the real estate agent but simply knocked on my door in the evenings, asking if they could look around.)

The new flat was tiny, way too small for all my stuff; with the washing machine in the minuscule bathroom, I couldn’t even close the door. Luckily it had a small yard, part of which was covered by an awning, and I stored some of my stuff there.

In Carlton I’d had quiet single women living on either side of me; in Northcote I was stuck in a ground floor flat below a young alpha male who seemed to have bricks for shoes and who talked so loudly I could hear him ordering his Friday night takeaway pizza over the phone. On a nearby highway, traffic whizzed by till the early hours. The Merri Creek, behind my flat, offered up a damp fug that filled the loungeroom on cold mornings and my old Honda finally gave out so I was more isolated than I’d ever been. After about a year I 'accidentally' flooded the place and was forced to leave.

Now I’ve boomeranged back to leafy East Malvern, and live in a large, rundown flat that is creepily close to where I lived with my family during my formative years. A couple of years ago rental prices skyrocketed in Melbourne because of a rental shortage and Carlton prices, always OTT, are now g-astronomical, more out of reach than ever.

Every now and then I go back to Carlton, to wile away an afternoon or evening there and pretend I’m still a resident. And as soon as my car reaches the corner of Rathdowne and Johnson streets, with the familiar service station on my left and Lygon Street just a little way up the hill, something tells me I’m home.

But I can’t really pretend I’m a resident any more. I’m an exile, a refugee from the inner city and no matter how many years I live in East Malvern, I always will be.

Perhaps I'm being unrealistic: perhaps the miracle was that I spent five years in Carlton, that small pocket of the world that so much of Melbourne crowds into, or would like to. For a while I lived in a place that I was sure was the centre of the universe. And it was ace.

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Smoking gun

I've got a longstanding beef against the neighbour immediately behind me (or should I say around the side from me -- it's all bound up with the configuration of my semi-detached flat). He smokes like a chimney, and as is the fashion these days, he goes outside (every ten minutes it seems) to have his puff, leaving his own place free of the stale miasma. But when he opens the back door and steps into his small backyard, he's also stepping into my territory.

I live in a 1930s group of three ground floor flats that are semi-detached. Mine is the only flat that fronts onto a main street; the other two are around the corner in a quiet side street. He lives in the middle one, attached to a flat on each side. The side fence of my backyard starts on the right of my bedroom window (from my vantage point) and runs past the part of his backyard that flanks his back door.

He is a young student completing a higher degree and I work from home. On the left of my bedroom is a bathroom and I basically don't open the windows of either room when he's home, which, it seems to me at the moment, is almost all the time. In fact when he's home I often keep the blackout curtain and venetians in the bedroom closed too, so terrified am I of a skerrick of smoke invading my bedroom (I've even contemplated putting some kind of plastic sheeting over the air holes up high in the far wall of the bedroom, but I think this is taking things too far!).

I'm so careful that rarely does the smell of cigarette smoke enter the house, but I've almost abandoned the backyard. I no longer hang my clean washing on the line; instead it's on clothes racks, outside the laundry or in the spare room, depending on the weather. My laundry is a little outhouse a step away from my back door, and when I'm out there handling my washing, I often hear the fateful slam of his back door. A minute later the smell comes wafting across the side fence and it always upsets me.

So why don't I march around the corner and confront him, and ask him to stand in another part of his backyard, say the part nearer his neighbours on the other side? They're probably not at home all day like me.

It's a long story that has something to do with the general vulnerability that the configuration of the flats forces on me, but the fact is I've already been through this with his barky dog. He and his girlfriend moved in a couple of years ago and I soon started to hear the frenzied yapping of a young puppy shut up in a room.

This turned into a nightmare of a few months, with the dog keeping up its forlorn chorus like a demented siren whenever they left the house. They were blissfully ignorant but when like a coward I complained to the council, they popped around, introduced me to their gorgeous dog and couldn't have been more cooperative. They arranged for dog sitting when they went out at night, promised to buy a citronella collar if things didn't get better, and even gave me a mobile number to ring if they were out and the desperate yelping started up.

Now it's not an issue. The irony is that when I do hear the dog during the day, it signals to me that they're out, and I actually open the windows for a much-needed airing!

So if I'm not prepared to do anything about it, I can't blame my neighbour, and I can't indulge the fury I feel when I hear that familiar back door slam (the last one at about 11.30 at night). I can't have it both ways. I've made an adult decision and I have to live with it. I know, too, that the determined way I shut my windows when I hear him come home, or the way I flounce inside from the laundry and slam my back door at the first whiff of smoke are signs of a pathetic passive-aggressive streak. I want him to read my mind and I want him to care. And he does neither.

My hatred of cigarette smoke does have some basis in legitimate health concerns. A decent amount of it makes me sneeze and feel foggy, and If I'm around a lot of it for hours I get a horrible case of catarrh and can't sleep. I see my hatred of cigarette smoke as a symptom of a general lack of secure barriers between myself and the world -- I'm a delicate greenhouse plant that shrivels if exposed to the elements. And indeed, after ingesting a lot of cigarette smoke (which very rarely happens) my subjectivity feels diminished. I feel less present, less there.

When I see a French movie in which everyone smokes around the food I can no longer project myself into an idealised, parallel version of my life as a sophisticated Parisian -- I wouldn't last two minutes in France, they seem to smoke everywhere. If I'm watching a television drama and someone lights up in a loungeroom I stop focusing on the plot and start imagining the horrible smell and the nicotine haze.

In Melbourne I'm relatively protected now that smoking is banned from restaurants and pubs, but I still get angry if someone lights up at a covered railway station or even a tram stop, which they're perfectly entitled to do.

I guess I know that if things got really bad I could assert myself. I also know that part of my fury stems from a desire to control my world and others. The world isn't perfect; my neighbours aren't perfect. And God knows, neither am I.

Sunday, March 1, 2009

Yet again, the ABC stoops low for high ratings

Sooner or later, defenceless babies were going to be the hapless victims of the television networks’ ruthless opportunism.

It happened in Britain over a year ago and now it’s happening again in Australia, despite the controversy that erupted the first time.

Bringing Up Baby, currently showing in Melbourne, is a reality TV program first screened on the UK’s Channel 4 that has as its basis three of the 20th century's most influential childcare manuals - Dr Truby King's 1913 Feeding and Care of Baby, Dr Benjamin Spock's Baby and Child Care and Jean Liedloff's 1975 The Continuum Concept. Each book presents a particular system for caring for young babies.

The show keeps tabs on six families as they attempt to carry out one of the three methods for the first weeks and months of their babies' lives. They grapple with methods of feeding, where the baby should sleep, how much parental contact it should have and whether it should be allowed to cry without being comforted.

The families are guided by three ‘mentors’ who single-mindedly instruct them on their chosen method. The mentors are intermittently shown arguing among themselves about the advantages and disadvantages of each method.

But one of the show’s ‘experts’, Claire Verity, who advocates the Truby King method, was shown to be a fraud and thoroughly discredited following the series’ UK screening, while qualified experts have decried her methods as life endangering. Parents were so concerned that they set up this blog before the show was even completed. A Facebook group against Verity was also set up and her own promotional website has now been taken down.

Yet the series is currently being screened in Australia, leaving Australian babies vulnerable to parents who might believe that Verity’s method has merit.

Two sane methods, one crazy one
Dr Spock is the closest the series gets to a mainstream view, and the most flexible method of the three. Spock’s advice, popular in the 1960s, could be summarised as ‘almost anything goes’. Parents follow their instincts and do what’s right for them, for example deciding whether to breastfeed or not.

The other method, the Continuum Concept, was developed in the 1970s and is based on the writer’s observation of South American tribes in which mothers carried their babies around with them constantly, resulting in incredibly happy, well-adjusted babies and children.

This method integrates the baby completely into the life of the mother (or any caregiver). She carries it around in a firm sling that allows her to do her household tasks, and breastfeeds on demand. She does not fuss over the baby but responds non-judgementally to its needs. The method is inflexible in that breastfeeding is mandatory. It also mandates that the baby sleep in the same bed as the parents so that it can feed whenever it’s hungry – considered dangerous by some as the baby could smother.

So far so uncontroversial, besides the sleeping arrangements dilemma. But the third method, based on a book by Truby King, is off the planet – a draconian, militaristic view that discourages bonding between parent and child and has been thoroughly scientifically discredited. Blogger Poor Pothecary has charted reactions to this method as practised on the program, including complaints from professional organisations.

Unscientific and dangerous
Truby King’s method, apparently widely followed in the 1950s, entails leaving the baby alone in a pram outside for hours to get ‘fresh air’, minimising cuddling, feeding strictly every four hours and leaving the baby alone to scream its lungs out for hours if need be.

Claire Verity, the ‘mentor’ who pushes this method, earns thousands of pounds for teaching parents to basically abuse their children. The method also includes the baby sleeping in a separate bedroom; the Times reports that the Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths warned Channel 4 that this advice was putting babies’ lives at risk. In addition, feeding only every four hours can result in failure to thrive and could be life endangering for premature babies.

The method is also unscientific in that leaving babies to cry and providing minimal contact has been proven to leave them open to psychological problems in later life.

Calling herself a ‘maternity nurse’, Verity has since been investigated by Channel 4 and found to have lied about the raft of childcare qualifications she claims to have garnered. The anger that her appearance on the series generated was so great that a large baby show being held in London cancelled her scheduled appearance for her own safety.

What angers me about Bringing Up Baby is that the abuse of helpless children that Verity oversees was planned for the titillation (sorry about the pun) of viewers. Controversy for its own sake is a principle in the ascendant across all media, including respectable broadsheets, which have regular columnists who present unsubstantiated, extreme opinions, including climate change denial, because such extremity sells newspapers.

This attitude, replicated in Bringing Up Baby, reduces the quality of public debate, which requires an understanding of nuance, detail and grey areas if it is to enhance democracy. The extreme method demonstrated on the show is there simply to increase audience numbers, yet has already harmed the babies who had no choice but to be part of the show. In addition, it may have detrimentally affected the parenting styles of those viewers unaware of Verity's lack of authority to provide advice in this area.

But for the ABC to repeat this dangerous deception and expose Australian babies to dangerous parenting practices, particularly as Verity herself has since been exposed, beggars belief.

Verity doesn’t simply disregard parents’ instincts, she positively spits on them. She states with a chilling surety, again and again, that the baby doesn’t need to be cuddled (you may as well substitute ‘loved’ for ‘cuddled’): it needs to be warm, fed, in a routine and left alone. She makes the controversial ‘controlled crying’ method look positively permissive.

This is a woman who has never had children of her own and therefore has no firsthand experience of the strength of parental instincts and the cost, to parent and child, of disregarding them. It is clear to me that she is deeply injured and is taking out her fury at her own neglect on the babies unlucky enough to come under her care. And indeed, she was apparently brought up using Truby King's method.

I feel guilty watching this show because it basically facilitates child abuse for my entertainment. Almost certainly the parents who chose this method wouldn’t have followed it if it wasn’t for the show. All they started with was a general inclination for discipline and order (one at least seems to have chosen it because of the need to go back to work soon after the birth). They clearly had no idea what was in store for them or the poor baby.

I'm about to make a strong complaint to the ABC about screening this show and I'd ask anyone else in Australia reading this to do the same.

Stop press: Not surprisingly, Australian viewers started googling Verity after the first episode of Bringing Up Baby was screened, and the ABC received a flood of complaints. Following these complaints the ABC inserted a long and convoluted disclaimer at the beginning of the program. The issue was aired last night on Media Watch, a show that highlights poor performance in Australian media. According to Media Watch,the disclaimer clearly indicated that the ABC shouldn't have bought the program in the first place.