Gandhi on women

I went to the Gandhi museum today. I haven't seen much in Delhi but this had the principle attraction of being air-conditioned, so off I went.

Of course, I was humbled and awed at what an insightful, wise and generous spirit he was, and his thoughts and teachings on women really stood out as ahead of their time.

Here are a few quotes:

ON PURDAH: (the practice of concealing women from men)
"And why is there all this morbid anxiety about female purity? Have women any say in the matter of male purity? We hear nothing of women's anxiety about men's chastity. Why should men arrogate to themselves the right to regulate female purity? It cannot be superimposed from without. It is a matter of evolution from within and, therefore, of individual self effort."

ON EDUCATION
"I believe in the proper education of women. But I do believe that women will not make her contribution to the world by mimicking or running a race with man. She can run the race, but she will not rise to the great heights she is capable of by mimicking man. She has to be the compliment of man."

ON INDIAN SOCIETY:
"Women in our country is brought up to think that she is well only with her husband or on the funeral pyre. I would far rather see India's women trained to wield arms than that they should feel helpless.

"Women is described as man's better half. As long as she has not the same rights in law as man, as long as a birth of a girl does not receive the same welcome as that of a boy, so long we should know that India is suffering from partial paralysis. Suppression of woman is a denial of Ahimsa."

ON ASSAULT:
"When a woman is assaulted she may not stoop to think in terms of himsa or ahimsa. Her primary duty is self-protection. She is at liberty to employ every method or means that come to her mind in order to defend her honour. God has given her nails and teeth. She must use them with all her strength and, if need be, die in the effort."

ON DOWRY:
"A strong public opinion should be created in condemnation of the degrading practice of dowry and young men who soil their fingers with such ill-gotten gold should be ex-communicated from society. Parents of girls should cease to be dazzled by English degrees and should not hesitate to travel outside their little castes and provinces to secure true gallant young men for their daughters."

A.A - Anonymous, but not invisible

By Katherine Burgdorf

What do you know about Alcoholics Anonymous? You're probably familiar with the concept of AA meetings, and maybe you've heard of their '12-step programme'. But, unless you're a social worker or a member of the Fellowship, as it is called, you probably don't know much more - I certainly didn't. And so when a friend invited me to attend a seminar hosted by AA I was keen to learn more about what I think is a fascinating and engaging organisation.

The event last night was a panel of speakers at the Houses of Parliament, hosted by AA and Iain Duncan Smith, the Conservative MP. The aim of the event was to educate broad groups of professionals on what AA is, and how it might be able to assist them in their roles when working with people who have an alcohol abuse problem. The audience was diverse and included psychiatrists, social workers, doctors, magistrates, members of the clergy, parliamentarians and other odds and sods like me. The message I took away was that while instincitively we think AA has a strong brand, many people know very little about the organisation and may not know enough about it to use it effectively when engaging with people whom the organisation could help.

There were four speakers at the event last night, two professionals (a psychiatrist and a manager within the prisons network) and two members of the AA Fellowship. Iain Duncan Smith unsurprisingly opened the panel with a plug for the coalition's universal credit scheme. His message was that the Government does not believe it is morally or socially acceptable to financially maintain the illnesses of what are the country's forgotten people. I have no desire to blog about Government policy in this piece so I'll leave it there, other than to write that I did think he made an interesting point about our cagey denial to tackle alcoholism. I feel we talk about alcoholism a lot in the UK, but I suppose his point was that if they was any other disease, we would do more. So what is it about drink problems that we shy away from? Is it that we all know, in the UK, that most of us drink too much, that we're in an uncomfortable boat together? Are we avoiding a mirror? I'd be interested in people's thoughts.

It was, of course, the two members of AA, drinkers who were achieving sobriety on a daily basis, who were the panel's best speakers - both in style and content. AA goes by first names only and in any case I've already forgotten names (amnesia sets in early) so I will call them Bill and Alex. 'Bill' was a vet, and I guess in his mid-60s - still working as he'd eventually lost everything he owned, and his family, in the trough of his 40-year drinking career (he had his last drink in 1999). Bill's message was that his life was governed by insanity when he was drinking. He was completely insane, and says the person he is today is the opposite of who he was when he was drinking. He recounted with absolute clarity his first drink, and his transformation via alcohol from shy, geeky schoolboy into a confident, outgoing conversationalist at ease with everyone. His message was that he absolutely had to hit rock bottom before he could see that life as it was wasn't working, and even then, he wasn't sure. And indeed, until very near the end he never missed a day's work in his vetinary practice. His message for the lady magistrate who asked 'is it really worth sending people to AA if they're not interested' was the rather endearing fact that he had to be physically dragged, driven and hauled into his first 40 or 50 group meetings. Even at rock bottom, he didn't think AA would work, and he didn't want to be there.

His attitude was shared by Alex. Alex was about as successful looking a woman as you could get. She would have been in her late twenties or early thirties, and is now working in the medical industry. If I could have pointed to the person in the reception area last night as my idea of the least most likely person to be an alcoholic it would have been her. But women make up around 40 per cent of AA's estimated 2 million members worldwide and looking successful - or being successful - aint any cure. Her opening comment was that she hoped she wouldn't gush too much about how AA had changed her life. She was absolutely passionate about it. The way she described her drinking was to say that her alcolholism just took off, straight away. From 16 to her mid twenties she was drinking, suicidal, in and out of institutions and just hated life, and hated the world. There were times of 'white knuckle sobriety' but it never lasted. It sounded like a bushfire. When she was asked about the moment she really knew she had to do something she said when she was drinking again and again even when she didn't want to be drunk. She vaguely knew a friend of a friend who was in AA and she said 'he absolutely had his stuff together' so she called him, and he introduced her. But she was certain it wouldn't work, and she really feared her personality would 'change'. She also said she sees the world almost inversely to the way she saw it when she was drinking, but she still feels like Alex, just happy. She shared that she was currently going through a separation which back then would have been a disaster, but now, while sad, was absolutely OK, and drinking as a 'solution' wasn't anywhere near the ballpark of possibilities.

Both of them talked about the pleasure they now have in helping others, and I left the event with a clear picture that for alcoholics who reach sobriety, a day at a time, it's a life's work to stay that way, and also to help sufferers reach that point too. Several times the speakers said if you take alcohol away you have to replace it with something, and that was very clearly service to others.

I am drawn to the simplicity and self-sustainability of this organisation. It began in 1935 at Akron, Ohio, as the outcome of a meeting between Bill W., a New York stockbroker, and Dr. Bob S., an Akron surgeon. Both had been 'hopeless alcoholics', according to the website's historic literature. In meeting each other, they found a unified way to reach sobriety together. In 1939 the Fellowship published its basic textbook, Alcoholics Anonymous. The text, written by Bill, explained A.A.'s philosophy and methods, the core of which was the now well-known Twelve Steps of recovery.

The concept of unity is core to the AA group, as is self-sufficiency. The organisation does not accept outside funding, and is instead funded by dues from its own members. It is, therefore, sufficient on itself for money, time, ideas, management and daily operation. While there is a General Service Office (GSO), and Board, in York in the UK, it is individual groups which are at the top of an inverted pyramid and which are the 'front line' of the organisation, to be supported by the GSO.

Anyone who works in marketing or business management would be drawn to the simplicity of the structure. The local groups, of which there are about 4,400 in the UK, have one single goal, which is to take its message to the 'still suffering' drinker. There is also only one requirement for membership to AA, which is a desire to stop drinking. As far as an organisational objective, it doesn't get much more straightforward than that. There are 'traditions' which are concepts broadly followed around the world, but they are not binding, and I would think take on a different flavour country to country (worth reading, http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org.uk/?PageID=57).

So what makes the AA particularly interesting to me is that it doesn't seem to follow the general pattern of a 'cause-based' charitable group. It is a charity, but it doesn't lobby, it doesn't seek publicity, the group is more imporant than the individual (indeed, the group is how the individual is helped), it doesn't fundraise externally and it states it 'does not wish to engage in any controversy; (and) neither endorses nor opposes any causes. Our primary purpose is to stay sober and help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety.' In the 2010 members' survey 91% of respondents said the aspect of AA which had a significant influence on recovery was attending regular group meetings.

I gather it sometimes (often?) attracts suspicion as a would be cult. Not being a member it's hard to know. The 12-steps and the traditions do reference God, and the panel last night addressed the question of spirituality and how that can be off-putting to people considering the group, but in typical British fashion the message was rather more like 'Spirituality? Make of it what you will.' With its foundations in 1930s America I would be shocked if it didn't have a strong religious framework. But, other than that, it doesn't seem to me to tick the usual cult boxes. For one, it doesn't seem to actively recruit members (or money), and secondly, it doesn't seem to promote a particular personality, such as the founders, other than for historical note. The trustees of the General Service Board have tenure of only four years, and they rotate at different times so there are always new faces coming through on the Board - something local councils of Britain might like to consider adopting for their committees. I may be wrong, of course, but listening to three members speak last night I didn't pick up any alarming vibes.

In this 'age of austerity' the concept of a 'free service' for a huge social issue is an attractive proposition. One of the professional panel speakers last night, a psychiatrist, said he was struck by the notion of infinity. If you take the number of people helped by AA in any given society, let's say it was 50,000 people, and called that 'achievement' or 'hope' and you placed that number over the cost of the service itself which is 'zero', the answer mathematically can be argued to be infinity. Infinite hope, or achievement. A very interesting thought and a very good reason why anonymity might be important for the Fellowship but it certainly shouldn't be invisible.


Resources

There seem to be several websites, even in the UK, but these were some useful links.

http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org.uk/_static/Who_Me.pdf

http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org.uk/?PageID=64

Are guns the answer to rape?

-->

Yesterday morning at breakfast time, I got talking to Lauren, an American woman who is in Lucknow volunteering for a women’s legal advocacy which provides legal advice and education on laws relating to women’s issues.

India’s laws regarding the protection of women are actually quite progressive, but the will to implement these laws by the police force is a far cry from the spirit in which those laws were enacted. What’s more, many women don’t even know of the existence of laws that are supposed to protect them.

A lot of the work Lauren’s charity does involves translating the laws from English – the Indian bureaucracy is conducted in English – into Hindu and a myriad of other Indian languages for general consumption. And it’s not just a matter of translation, says Lauren. The idea that there is a law to protect her from her husband’s abuse is just incomprehensible to many Indian women who still live in small, patriarchal villages.

When Lauren went to work, I came into my room and turned on my computer. On the Guardian’s homepage there was a story about an increasing number of Indian woman buying guns to protect themselves.

Navdeep, a middle class woman from Ludhiana, near Chandiargh in Punjab, explained to the Guardian why she needed a shot gun, ‘Our government cannot take care of so many people. They get to know about crime cases only once they occur. That’s why we have to take care of our safety on our own.’

This is not an unusual or unique view among Indian women. In fact, even Anandita, a smart, well-educated Indian woman I’ve met in Lucknow is considering buying a gun herself for the same reasons.

But is this distrust in the police justified, I wondered. And then I read the report from Tehelka, a respected Indian publication known for its investigative work.

Following a series of recent rape cases in which the response by the police was less than sympathetic toward the victim – in one case in which a bar worker was gang raped walking home after work, the police response was to issue a blanket curfew of 8pm, thereby denying women the right to work at night, or basically announcing that if they did they were asking to be raped – the magazine conducted its own investigation into police officers’ attitudes to rape.

Tehelka interviewed more than 30 police officers in 23 stations in the Delhi-National Capital Region (NCR) posing at research scholars. Their mission was to answer the following questions:

Have we created a system that instills [sic] fear in the heart of offenders, promotes deterrence and ensures that offenders get exemplary punishment? While we may have excellent statutes to deal with crimes against women, do we also have the police machinery to implement the law in its letter and spirit? Are police stations of the NCR being manned by professional and efficient police officers who can deliver justice to hapless women turning up at their doors?

Their findings were a pretty resounding ‘no’. They found that more than half doubted that rape existed in most cases, citing that women were ‘asking for it’ by dressing immodestly, drinking alcohol, staying out late or by having relationships with men. One police officer even stated that if a woman had sex with her boyfriend, then she shouldn’t be surprised if his friends wanted in on the action. To him, this was ample justification for gang rape.

‘It’s very rare that a girl is forcefully picked up by 10 boys. A girl who gets into a car with boys is never innocent. If she does, she definitely has a relationship with at least one of them,’ one police officer told Tehelka’s researchers.

Another officer has this to say about women who drink alcohol with men: ‘If a girl asks for a birthday party and is alone with 2-3 boys and sees they are drinking, she knows what is likely to happen. When she herself goes for such a party, she can’t complain of rape. How can you call it rape if she is sitting and drinking with them?’

Overwhelmingly, the police officers interviewed seemed to believe that most of the reported cases of rape were instances of prostitution gone wrong. Some even claimed that women had made a business out of accusing men of rape.

‘People have understood this is a lucrative trade for women; it’s business. They’ve found an income source. It’s common; you’re short of money, your parents don’t give you money to spend. You make compromises.’

Tehelka reported that more than 17 officers spoke ‘about a supposedly dirty nexus of money, mal-intent, compromises and sex.’

In another case of gang rape, the victim was said to obviously be asking for it since her mother is divorced and now has a younger boyfriend.

‘The girl’s mother is divorced. She’s living with another man from the Yadav community. She’s 48 whereas the man is 28. It’s inevitable the two daughters will be wayward, isn’t it?

‘Now when two young girls watch their 48-year-old mother sleeping with a 28-year-old man, even they’ll be aroused. Sex is like hunger.’

The report is conclusive and convincing: the police officers investigating crimes against women are not in tune with the spirit of India’s progressive laws.

When we talk about this magazine investigation over breakfast the next morning, Anandita says, ‘Oh no, the men are never punished for the rape. That never happens.’ And this is why she feels she needs a gun. I can understand her sentiment.

I know that every woman and – I would like to think – man reading this is horrified at these quotes and attitudes. Thank God, I can hear you say, that we live in a country where people no longer have these attitudes.

And yet, in spite of these attitudes, the conviction rate of rape cases in Delhi is 34.6 per cent, a statistic Tehelka laments, but one which is almost 30 percentage points higher than the British rate. It’s true that there is a much higher rate of unreported rape in India than the West - one report found that for every reported rape 50 go unreported – and why would you report a rape if this was the attitude you would be met with?

I’m glad I don’t feel like I need a gun to protect myself in Australia or Britain, but maybe that’s just more to do with my opinion on gun ownership. Because what if I were raped while coming home drunk: Could I bear to be put on the witness stand and have my outfit scrutinised along with my drinking habits and sexual history? I’m really not sure.

Only one thing is clear to me: from east to west, as women, we all have a long way to go.

Just home on a Friday night thinking

Hey.

I'm home now, on my own. Eating a piece of dryish Manchego. A glass of wine
I always want to write when I've been out on my own. I've just seen Julie Delpy's Two Days in New York. I tried to get tickets at Sundance in London but it was sold out. It was good. It was very French. Speeded up direction, spoken narrative. Kind of annoying and kind of fun. Her own dad was her dad in the film.
Going out on my own always makes me want to write. You take in more. You watch other people. You don't have to worry about what someone else is thinking. You don't waste any thoughts...you have to carry them around with you.
I'm thinking, Gabrielle, that this is what they meant at the ashram. I haven't wasted my thoughts because I haven't spoken to anyone. They're just melting around.

I read something this week that's been on my mind, and it came up in the film. I often read the FT's management section online. I love Lucy Kellaway. If you work in an office, and you don't know her, you should read her. I wrote to her once with a link to this blog (my piece on sexism in the city) but she didn't write back. There's a professor at (hang on, I've got to shut the window, it's cold now) there's a professor at Harvard Business School called Clayton Christensen, who has just published a book called How will you measure your life. I read that in the FT this week and there was a link to the original Harvard Business Review article/speech that led to the book's publication. Professor Christensen was asked to make the speech by his students. Every year, in one of the final sessions of his course, he talks to his students about the theory of how their lives will turn out, based on the decisions they make through their lives, and through their careers.

He was prompted to think about management theory in relation to personal lives when he started to look at where his own contemporaries were ending up - in their lives and in their careers. A couple went to jail (one was at Enron) and many were divorced, or had become alcoholics, and suffered depressions. HIs point was well, that might be par for the course of any group of people in America, but I think he wanted to look at how you could almost predict how people's lives would turn out based on their management style, and personal culture, as you might be able to analyse the success of one company and the likely failure of another based on management theory. (Right this minute my right hand is very cold and my left hand is very warm. I know that means the opposite side of my brain to the warm hand is working but I'm not sure what side that relates to?) Anyway, the central question that he asks in the book, and in his class at Harvard, is 'How will you measure your life'. Because you can make all the money in the world, and rise to be the CEO of General Motors, but that outward business achievement could be dwarfed by failtures elsewhere, or may even be likely to create failures elsewhere depending on your management technique. And/or have you succeeded in the real spaces of your life, or any one dimension?

I have wondered this before in a roundabout way. How will I look back on my life. But I don't think I've ever blatantly posed the question how will I measure it? If someone asked me to account for my life - not God at St Peter's gates, but more like my line manager, Tony - then what would I say? I don't know! I guess I'd say 'I was a good-ish person. I never killed anyone (I think about it a lot though, really). I worked hard. I donated money to charity quite a lot, I wasn't any trouble, I don't cost the Government anything really, except my use of UK roads, and very occassional use of the public health care system (I estimate about 10% of my British medical contact has been NHS). But I don't think I've got much else to say. If it was about 'what have you done' I'd say 'well, I've lived in another country, I've done triathlons, I've walked probably thousands of miles, I've had two careers so far, and in one of them I've placed the UK's (world's?) first (only?) convertible, zero-dividend preference share, and I know I'll have another career after this (though probably not as a writer). It's not a great list though. I'm not JK Rowling, or Debbie Summer.

And so I wonder, what is there for the rest of us who probably won't/not really driven for having kids/family, and who aren't really going to establish a religious order or move to Kinshsha to set up an aids clinic. I don't know. I'm really interested. Is this the question we need to ask in order to really do something?

At the moment, my answer to 'how will you measure your life' is probably something along the lines of 'a measure of comfort.' I had a measure of comfort. I lived here, then I lived there. I found someone to love, if love actually exists really (I'm never sure really, I always think it might be like a sci-fi thing like the matrix where we're all just plugged into a stimulator thing that feels like this or that or love or guilt or tiredness but actually we're nothing, but I'm not sure and maybe it's all the same - reality and unreality). But I don't think 'a measure of comfort' is a great answer. I know I don't need to measure my life but I can see the merits in the question. Because otherwise...well...see, I don't really think we're here for a reason at all anyway. So I get very confused about all of this.

In the film the story ends with the common thought that you need to have love (whatever that is) and the love of many people in order that you have 'back up' if someone dies. But what about it you're not great at doing 'people'? I think about death and old age a lot. I always have, even when I was really young. The other night, when Simon was away, I gave his eulogy in my mind at his funeral service. I've given this speech many times since I've known him (is it a charm to protect against the real thing?) and it's always very good, and very sad, and it always makes me cry. But that helps make me sleep, so it's good too. In the morning the eulogy always seems way too melodramatic (in this particular speech, for example, I threatened to hunt his ex-wife down (and kill her? I couldn't decide even then if that was too strong for the occassion) to the very darkest cave if she ever complained after his death that he hadn't given her enough money...as she spends a lot of time complaining currently. As I say, it was probably an inappropriate speech for the funeral but in my mind she had insisted on coming and sitting in the front row. I still don't know in reality whether she would want to come to his funeral or not - or what I would think about that. It's on my list of things to know how to handle though, because I like to be prepared. Maybe I'll measure my life by how prepared I am?).

(I'm back, I had to get some more cheese, my right hand is still icy).

Anyway, but the trouble is, I don't really like people much so I don't cultivate a large and broad circle of friends. I can't be bothered. I know that will be my loss so it does worry me, but at the moment, I can afford to be lazy about it. So, how will I measure my life if I don't really care about anything? Is this why people have kids? I don't think so. I don't think people think about it that much.

In his book the professor gives a personal example of how he has shaped his life deliberately. He has a strong (Mormon) faith and made a promise to God when he was a teenager that he would never play basketball on Sunday. He went to Oxford in England (as a Rhodes Scholar) and his basketball team made the national finals. But it was to be played on a Sunday. He didn't play. To the amazement of his teammates and coach, who all said 'but, it's just one Sunday!' He felt then, and now, that it was very important to stick to his principles, and that it's easier to be principled 100% of the time, than 98% of the time. And he feels now that had he made the allowance 'just once' the long time impact would have been exponentially higher than the apparent short term 'price' of stepping over the line 'just that one time'. I do like that story because I think he's right. And I respect very principled people, and I think it's right that it's easier to be 100% on something, not 98% on something.

Anyway.

That's where I'm at. I can't be bothered writing this so it makes sense. I think you know what I mean. There's lots of sirens going on. It's a bit chilly.

I've got a creative workshop tomorrow at the School of Life. I started to write to you about the event they held this Monday night. It was 6 sessions on big themes like 'how to find fulfilling work' and 'how to think more about sex with Alain de Botton' No, really, it was 'How to think more about sex, with Alain de Botton (you need the comma, you see, it's a joke), and 'how to change the world'. The best think I got from the (super short) sessions was why don't you think of your career as being really broad...think about success as bredth, not verticality (I've made that word up). I like that, because I'm moderately good at lots of things. I don't care enough about any one think I've done so far for a living to be the CEO or super senior. It was a good piece of advice.

Anyway. Now I'm going to read Gabsy's latest blog. I can never read someone else's work when I'm about to write because it might already say what I want to say.

See you later. I wonder if anyone will read this, and no, this is just the way I think all the time.

xx KB

Censorship, Australian-style, by Coles and Woolies

It was with sadness and dismay I read the news that an advertisement by the grassroots campaign organisation GetUp! had been banned from the air by all the major Australian television networks.

Why? Because it criticises Coles and Woolworths – two of the country’s biggest advertisers.

This is censorship, Australia. It is a direct offense to freedom of speech and shows clearly how in hock the nation is to big business.

From afar, it looks like big business runs Australia. It’s a rather dismal thought to have as I prepare to return to live there after almost a decade abroad.

The stranglehold that Coles and Woolworths have over the nation affects every person, every mother trying to feed her children, every father, every person who wants to eat. Why can I buy eight avocados for £1 in London – where they are imported – and I have to pay $3 for one in Sydney, when they are grown in Australia? It is now cheaper to have a meal at McDonald’s for lunch than it is to make your own sandwich. No wonder there’s an obesity problem. This is not simply a matter of market forces: there are four million people in Sydney – that is not a small market on any scale. There are an equivalent number of people in Barcelona, and I can tell you now, that avocados do not cost $3 there. When I lived in Barcelona, I could buy several bags of fresh fruit and vegetables for under $10.

Yes, Australia is a huge nation and the cost of transportation and logistics is high, but not high enough to justify the huge increase in the price of fresh food that has – not coincidentally – risen with growth of the Coles and Woolworths franchises. The fewer independent grocers out there, the more expensive the food. It’s a no-brainer. A duopoly of this kind should be illegal under Australia’s own competition laws. Why isn’t it?

It’s time to think very carefully, people of Australia, about in whose interests political decisions are being made. And maybe it will take a flagrant abuse of freedom of speech to wake people up.

It is now clear that if you disagree with Coles and Woolworths, you will not be allowed to say so on Australian television. Are you comfortable with that?

According to GetUp! Nine actually told a journalist straight: it would be "illogical to ruin relationships with valued, and long-standing, clients for the sake of GetUp's campaign."

This is the ad that the networks don’t want you to see.

Yes, it’s controversial, but since when were we not allowed to have a controversial opinion?

You can read more about GetUp's campaign here.

Seven (plus two) secrets to a happy life

In the last SpeedBlog, I referred to a wise woman’s advice to me. That wise woman has now agreed to share with us all her seven (plus two) secrets to a happy, fulfilled life. She is now 69 and runs three miles a day.*

I made this list when I was 37. It’s what I would have done differently if I could go back and start over. Of course, one can STILL do everything on the list at any point.

1)TAKE CARE OF HEALTH
No smoking
Eat well
Maintain a good weight
Exercise

2) BE A HOMEMAKER AT EVERY PERIOD OF LIFE
Don't say, "Oh, I don't own it/I'm only renting/I won't be here long/This isn't the apartment, room or house I want/I'm unhappy here/I'm going to move soon/I'm getting divorced.” etc

3) PURSUE HOBBIES AND INTERESTS IN AN ORGANISED FASHION
Otherwise you love to read, but years pass and you haven't read a book; you love the theatre, but years pass and you realise you haven't seen a play in three years; you want to learn to cook kebabs, but years pass etc!

4) ENJOY EACH STAGE OF LIFE
I remember being unhappily married and going to a grocery store one Saturday night and seeing two young women together in animated conversation- and remembering that when I was young and single and going out with a friend on a Saturday night, I didn't appreciate how much fun it was! Each stage and condition has its own pleasures.

5) GET A PROFESSION OR A TRADE
If you don't know what you want to do, become a lab technician or go to secretarial school, or get a bartending license, a certificate to teach English as a foreign language - something- then when you decide what you want to do you will be able to pay for it.

6)  ENJOY THE CHILDREN EVEN MORE
No matter how much you enjoy them, enjoy them more!

7) MOST RELATIONSHIPS ARE RECREATIONAL IN NATURE
Don't turn every little affair into a major romance complete with heartbreak etc. Men seem to know this instinctively, but we women just don't get it. It's only serious when it's serious.

In old age I’ve added two more:
8) TAKE CARE OF MONEY

9) MASTER TECHNOLOGY
It really is worth it to spend an hour reading the booklet when you get something new - a phone, a toaster, oven etc.

*Editor's note: The woman who gave me this advice insists they are NOT secrets to a happy life - for who knows that? (in fact her actual words were 'What kind of person would have the nerve to claim they know the secrets to a happy life?) - they are merely things she would have done differently and can still do. Sorry, dear friend, for both naming you and misquoting you!