Karen Matthews

[poliphilo]

It's remarkable how we all went out of our way not to notice the squalor and fecklessness of Karen Matthew's life- the five kids by different fathers, the stinky house, the rat-like, younger boyfriend (or partner as we respectfully called him). What we saw on screen was a sorry slob, what we pretended to see was a grieving earth mother. There was an unspoken conspiracy to lend her dignity

We just don't know how to relate to the poor- by which I mean the truly poor, the underclass, the ones who are not just short of cash, but short of everything else- culture, education, motivation, ambition. Our merciful, Christian Socialist state should have educated, welfared, social-cared these people off the face of the earth decades ago. But here they still are- an intractable mass- the unlovely proles- the poor who- in the annoyingly prophetic words of the New Testament- we "have always with us."

They're an offence and an embarrassment and we're afraid of sliding down hill and winding up among them. We're also afraid of appearing snobbish- uncaring; it's a terrible quandary they put us in. We get round the problem of looking them in the eye by mythologising them.  They're not to be held to the sort of standards we impose on ourselves because they're either demons- hoodies, gangbangers, pramfaces- or icons of suffering nobility, blameless victims.   And because we turn so squirmingly soft in their presence a halfway cunning lowlife like Karen Matthews is able to con us rotten. 

We should have trusted to first impressions. She seemed to be selfish, stupid, squalid, amoral- and that's just what she is.  And the ratlike "partner" turned out to have kiddieporn on his computer.

Comments

[michaeljohngrist.com (from livejournal.com)]

If we don't blame society, what else can we blame? Choice blah blah- I don't really believe in choice, nor even that much do I believe in free will. We're just incredibly complex organisms, influenced by such a myriad of million tiny bits of complexity, all of which play into our cost/benefit decisions- that we project the illusion of choice.
Or something like that. The point is- isn't our great merciful socialist state to blame for these welfare-poor, this underclass of Morlocks waiting to drag us down into their filth?
Yes, of course it is. The State gives free money- people take the free money and grow fat and lazy, hate themselves because they are such pointless bags of waste and they know it, and spiral that hatred and anger out to drag others down- so they don't feel so worthless themselves.
So can they blame society for their psychopathic stuff? Well, they can try- but any program (read- person) that knows enough to blame someone else for their actions has enough knowledge of self and world to be considered responsible.
Can we break this cycle. Of course, and yes it is evolution, but not of genetics, but of our brain-generated complexity, our ideas. Welfare is broken, bam. It's too cushy. Things should not be given for free. Ignorance and laziness should not be rewarded. Neither should they be punished outright. It's the responsibility of society to provide a ladder for these people to climb out of the slum. If they refuse to climb the ladder, well- it's our job to find a ladder they do want to climb. If we can't find any ladder for them- some way for them to contribute and connect and raise their own value, then we fail them, they fail us, and they'll end up on the streets or in jail.
We need a little more social Darwinism, and a lot less coddling.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Yes, but Morlock is a term invented by H.G. Wells- and it predates our merciful, Socialist state. It was the Industrial revolution that created the modern underclass, by concentrating thousands of desperate people in the slums of the big, new cities. Socialism was an attempt to solve an already existing problem- albeit one that has failed.

In order to carry out something like your programme we'd have to create a social welfare apparatus much bigger and very much more efficient than the one we have now. At present social work is a profession plied by young women straight out of university- many of them clueless and easily intimidated. Have you followed the case of Baby P- the young boy who was murdered by his mother and step-dad in spite of his case being repeatedly referred to the proper authorities? The system is hopelessly bureaucratic and essentially broke. So, of course, is the British state. Will anything change? I very much doubt it. We'll just keep muddling along.

[(Anonymous)]

Could we revert to feudalism? i.e. each needy family gets a plot of land in the sticks and a manual on how to grow things? If they can't be bothered to grow anything then they're buggered, but not necessarily literally.
Tom F

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

There was a political movement in the first half of the 20th century that advocated something very much like that. It was called Distributism. Writers like G.K. Chestertom and Hilaire Belloc lobbied very hard for it- and got nowhere.

Some political ideas are simply untimely. They may be excellent ideas in themselves, but the climate of the age is against them and they don't take root.