ECHR: Poor white boys get "a worse start in life".

ancapailldorcha · 31-10-2015 01:40PM #1

I thought about posting this in the sexism or the men's rights thread but I think that it might be thread worthy in and of itself. A report from the European Human Rights Commission has found that:

BBC Newsbeat wrote:

If you're white, male and poor enough to qualify for a free meal at school then you face the toughest challenge when starting out in life.

That's what the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has said in "the most comprehensive review ever carried out on progress towards greater equality in Britain".

The suggestion is because white male poor pupils do worse at school their chances of getting good jobs is reduced.

The EHRC, an organisation set up to get rid of discrimination, defines anyone who qualifies for a free school meal as poor.

The world is changing and it seems like these young boys are simply being left behind. Other demographics have activists fighting their behalf and politics as a whole is fairly unrepresentative of the population it is meant to serve. Regarding the white working class as a whole, Guardian columnist Owen Jones has written a modern but heavily flawed primer on the subject. Here is a link to the ECHR website.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/34667100/poor-white-boys-get-a-worse-start-in-life-says-equality-report

Qualitymark · 31-10-2015 01:50PM

Yes; lack of apprenticeships, degrading of traditional skills, countries that mandate taking the cheapest tender (ie from Bulgaria) for government contracts rather than using local firms by preference as France does - the semi-skilled and skilled work for young lads is disappearing.

RDM_83 again · 31-10-2015 07:18PM

Going to frame this in terms of the UK but they are caught in the awkward position where they are not represented by any of the political wings, the center Right (conservatives) doesn't want anything to do with them as they do not represent their traditional voter base.
The New Left doesn't want anything to do with them because of they aren't an upworthy group, the New Old Left represented by Corybin appears not to want to represent them as they are positive towards policies such as migration which will have a negative effect on them(yes provably statistically).

More subtly its ok to be openly negative towards them as a group in a way that you can't normally, its ok for me to say in polite company that I would avoid a group of young white youths its not ok for me to say that about a group of black youths (this is in a London context in Dublin I wouldn't do this as there isn't the same issue with street crime and minorities probably due to better integration/ being 1st generation communities/lack of the same drugs problem within those communities)

I know its always trotted out by the "nasties" but the response to the child sex abuse scandals in the former industrial towns in the England show how as a demographic (not just males) the white working class in England isn't considered a group its worth getting worked up over. Yes there was an eventual response (after years of it being highlighted including by MP's) but it was on a equivalent scale to what happened in Ireland decades ago and became a major national issue.

ancapailldorcha · 31-10-2015 07:27PM

However, as you've said this is a demographic without any sort of lobbying group. The three main parties in the UK carried on as usual while UKIP gained a lot of serious support. Unsurprisingly, nobody bothered standing up for poor white males a lot of whom voted for UKIP. The other alternative, the Greens obsessed about winning a gender quota war and generally epitomised the political beliefs of the Guardian.

I'd prefer to leave immigration aside as there are multiple topics on this running in the various Politics forums here and it will only derail the thread.

The point I alluded to and you've outright mentioned is that this is a demographic that has been completely neglected for decades and it's a pattern which sadly looks set to continue as Corbyn (who I wanted to become Labour leaer) continues to capitulate to the radical leftist elements of his party.

Qualitymark · 31-10-2015 09:02PM

This is the demographic that made the Citizen Army…

silverharp · 01-11-2015 11:34AM

one of the fundamental problems is that a boy in this situation is probably being raised by a single mother with little social capital who is immune to social criticism. the only pragmatic thing I could think off is that these kids leave traditional education and enter the workforce part time when they are 13 or 14 so that they get used to having a bit of structure in their lives and learn some responsibility. This could be combined with a mixture of mentoring and education in some kind of training centre.
tweaking welfare and giving additional educational supports etc. doesnt do much if the home environment is crap.

Qualitymark · 01-11-2015 11:41AM

Oh, that's right, blame the mammy.

silverharp · 01-11-2015 11:57AM

Qualitymark wrote: »

Oh, that's right, blame the mammy.

this is an abstract from a US report , do you see anything fundamentally wrong with its conclusions?

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=167327

The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency reports that the most reliable indicator of violent crime in a community is the proportion of fatherless families. Fathers typically offer economic stability, a role model for boys, greater household security, and reduced stress for mothers. This is especially true for families with adolescent boys, the most crime-prone cohort. Children from single-parent families are more prone than children from two-parent families to use drugs, be gang members, be expelled from school, be committed to reform institutions, and become juvenile murderers. Single parenthood inevitably reduces the amount of time a child has in interaction with someone who is attentive to the child's needs, including the provision of moral guidance and discipline. According to a 1993 Metropolitan Life Survey, "Violence in America's Public Schools," 71 percent of teachers and 90 percent of law enforcement officials state that the lack of parental supervision at home is a major factor that contributes to the violence in schools. Sixty-one percent of elementary students and 76 percent of secondary children agree with this assessment.

efb · 01-11-2015 12:19PM

silverharp wrote: »

this is an abstract from a US report , do you see anything fundamentally wrong with its conclusions?

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=167327

Is it causation or correlation???

Poor Single parent family structures fare barely. Affluent single parent families don't have the same disparity.

Pawwed Rig · 01-11-2015 12:26PM

This is the demographic that was traditionally (in a UK context) disposed off as canon fodder in an argument between royal cousins or in an Irish context worked on a small holding of land tring to scrape a living or was sent for adoption for being 'illegitimate'. Not surprising then that they have fallen through the cracks in modern times.

silverharp · 01-11-2015 12:59PM

efb wrote: »

Is it causation or correlation???

Poor Single parent family structures fare barely. Affluent single parent families don't have the same disparity.

Indeed which is why I said with "little social capital" .

OldRio · 01-11-2015 01:15PM

'probably being raised by a single mother'

Some for sure but 'probably' is a wee bit of a guess. As for an American study?
The UK and the USA and us are different cultures.

Qualitymark · 01-11-2015 01:41PM

silverharp wrote: »

this is an abstract from a US report , do you see anything fundamentally wrong with its conclusions?

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=167327

I see it as opinion rather than conclusions.

The given wisdom among social workers has generally been that the most stabilising factor for boys is grandmothers living nearby and involved in their upbringing. However, if you want to blame uninvolved and irresponsible fathers, that's fine by me.

silverharp · 01-11-2015 02:56PM

Qualitymark wrote: »

I see it as opinion rather than conclusions.

The given wisdom among social workers has generally been that the most stabilising factor for boys is grandmothers living nearby and involved in their upbringing. However, if you want to blame uninvolved and irresponsible fathers, that's fine by me.

possibly, the more family structure the better. The point is at this stage can the cycle be broken? in less well to do areas for fathers to be good fathers they need to have a trade or career. And for mothers to be good mothers they need to find good fathers and be able to tell them apart from the irresponsible types.

Henry9 · 01-11-2015 03:32PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

However, as you've said this is a demographic without any sort of lobbying group. The three main parties in the UK carried on as usual while UKIP gained a lot of serious support. Unsurprisingly, nobody bothered standing up for poor white males a lot of whom voted for UKIP.

As if to prove the point, you only have to raise some potential contributors and there will be those who pick up the cudgels, accusing you of 'demonizing' single mothers.

Edmund Walsh in Limerick did some research a few years ago, apparently growing up on sink estates where nobody works and your single mother is on benefits is not conducive to positive life outcomes.
What was the response at the time? 'Stigmatizing single mothers..... blah blah blah...'

It's hardly surprising they are falling through the cracks. The education system has been rejigged to be stacked against them. There's a constant narrative in the media that men are the root of all evil and that girls are 'better than boys' at everything.
The old industries where you could leave school and make a living are nearly all gone.
The lower level service jobs pay terrible money, are completely insecure, and there's a long line of immigrants willing to do them at a cheaper rate in order to get their foot on the ladder.

Any young man without a proper education is fcuked in my opinion.

Qualitymark · 01-11-2015 04:31PM

silverharp wrote: »

possibly, the more family structure the better. The point is at this stage can the cycle be broken? in less well to do areas for fathers to be good fathers they need to have a trade or career. And for mothers to be good mothers they need to find good fathers and be able to tell them apart from the irresponsible types.

First point true.

Second point, well, it is a universally recognised truth that women will link up with a man in relation to his potential as a provider more than any other factor, when they're looking for a long-term mate.

However, I'm inclined to think that this one study isn't necessarily the fount of all wisdom on the subject.

silverharp · 01-11-2015 05:10PM

Qualitymark wrote: »

First point true.

Second point, well, it is a universally recognised truth that women will link up with a man in relation to his potential as a provider more than any other factor, when they're looking for a long-term mate.

However, I'm inclined to think that this one study isn't necessarily the fount of all wisdom on the subject.

I wouldnt have thought there is anything controversial in saying there is a link between chaotic family structures and future outcomes of kids? Whatever way you want to analyse it a teenage mother having kids is a disaster for everyone.
In the context of "poor white boys" what is the contrast? lets say its a "poor muslim boy" relatively speaking the muslim boy grows up with a good family structure and Im guessing some expectation that they make something of themselves before they get married
The poor white mother to be has a problem as her total pool of potential partners are all in the same boat and she cant tell the good ones from the ones that will likely not stick around etc. In the UK 3 out of 100 births are teenage ones, this is going to be the core problem group going forward.
So one can be a fatalist and write off these groups or at least see if the cycle can be broken. the rational approach is to educate everyone of course so that a 16 year old girl doesnt see pregnancy as a career move and the State as their "marriage" partner. But also to not neglect boys in particular as by turning them into useful individuals it gives their female peers ways of selecting suitable mates.

Qualitymark · 02-11-2015 12:31AM

silverharp wrote: »

I wouldnt have thought there is anything controversial in saying there is a link between chaotic family structures and future outcomes of kids? Whatever way you want to analyse it a teenage mother having kids is a disaster for everyone.

Most single mothers are not teenage mothers. Most single mothers have un-chaotic family lives and are kind, supportive and responsible parents.

Certainly there is a link with chaotic family structure and the outcome of kids' lives. What are you doing about it?

tritium · 02-11-2015 07:48AM

But but, the patriarchy. ...........

Hardly surprising that a group that has well known social problems but receives nothing but official derision as a 'problem' fare poorly. This is a group offered few of the social safety nets available to other demographics because it wouldn't play with the overarching social message being pumped out that white men are privliged.

Even on boards I've heard issues that affect them dismissed because 'they can get an apprenticeship' or 'their fault for being laddish' While we're busy telling young girls they're being held back from STEM and politics we're telling this demographic they're scum who'll never amount to anything, who should be content to learn a basic trade and muddle along without ambition.

Pointing to their social structure and how lack of a father's influence may compound the problem is nice but not very helpful given the range of other social issues this demographic face. Its not as simple as not having a fathers influence when so many other adverse factors are associated with single parent families, including poverty, social exclusion and lack of educational opportunity. Ultimately its an aspect they can't influence and indeed are blameless for. You wouldn't in this day and age get away with telling any other group that the circumstances of their birth justified the biases they faced but somehow young men are fair game

Not so different to the treating like cannon fodder in the past really.....

Lemming · 02-11-2015 12:05PM

tritium wrote: »

Its not as simple as not having a fathers influence when so many other adverse factors are associated with single parent families, including poverty, social exclusion and lack of educational opportunity. Ultimately its an aspect they can't influence and indeed are blameless for. You wouldn't in this day and age get away with telling any other group that the circumstances of their birth justified the biases they faced but somehow young men are fair game

Not so different to the treating like cannon fodder in the past really.....

I'm reminded of a comment that Andy McNab wrote in his book reflecting on his upbringing, joining the British Army and his eventual acceptance into the SAS. In it, he talks about first enlisting and having such poor academic skills that he - among with a classful of others - were taught the required standard of basic writing, maths, etc. that the army expected of them.

On his first day, the instructor simply said to them that "Out there, they say you can't read or write. I say you simply never learned to read or write." Subtle point, but well made regards how society views so many young folk from disadvantaged backgrounds and simply writes them off without ever having given them a chance.

tritium · 02-11-2015 12:46PM

Lemming wrote: »

I'm reminded of a comment that Andy McNab wrote in his book reflecting on his upbringing, joining the British Army and his eventual acceptance into the SAS. In it, he talks about first enlisting and having such poor academic skills that he - among with a classful of others - were taught the required standard of basic writing, maths, etc. that the army expected of them.

On his first day, the instructor simply said to them that "Out there, they say you can't read or write. I say you simply never learned to read or write." Subtle point, but well made regards how society views so many young folk from disadvantaged backgrounds and simply writes them off without ever having given them a chance.

As an interesting side point, it illustrates how for many young men from poor backgrounds joining the armed forces was the only way to get ahead. Its also one of the reasons why there's so little interest in addressing the issue, since the current crucible of first world standards of social justice also happens to need a ready supply of exactly this resource. Which in no way excuses the lack of interest from groups who claim to give a damn about addressing inequality etc

Cannon fodder indeed......

Sleepy · 02-11-2015 03:46PM

I've posted about this at length before but, realistically, what can any government do to help provide meaningful employment to the poorly skilled in a global world?

Labour intensive manufacturing and agriculture are consigned to our history books in the developed world so unless you have the motivation and ability to obtain a degree, you haven't a chance in the modern workplace. Even with a degree, many young men and women find it difficult to get a job that can sustain them. Add a family into the mix and it becomes extremely difficult to pay your way in life without at least one parent having a job that earns substantially more than the average industrial wage.

In our global economy we can't compete with the developing world in manufacturing and any attempts to impose higher minimum wages just encourage businesses to automate further or outsource the work to those developing nations where labour is cheap and health and safety regulations are few. McDonalds new touch-screen order taking machines being a good example of the former.

The laws of supply and demand will soon erode the earning power of tradesmen as apprenticeships are pretty much the only career option for so many of our young men at the moment.

03-11-2015 10:41AM

Sleepy wrote: »

I've posted about this at length before but, realistically, what can any government do to help provide meaningful employment to the poorly skilled in a global world?

Labour intensive manufacturing and agriculture are consigned to our history books in the developed world so unless you have the motivation and ability to obtain a degree, you haven't a chance in the modern workplace. Even with a degree, many young men and women find it difficult to get a job that can sustain them. Add a family into the mix and it becomes extremely difficult to pay your way in life without at least one parent having a job that earns substantially more than the average industrial wage.

In our global economy we can't compete with the developing world in manufacturing and any attempts to impose higher minimum wages just encourage businesses to automate further or outsource the work to those developing nations where labour is cheap and health and safety regulations are few. McDonalds new touch-screen order taking machines being a good example of the former.

The laws of supply and demand will soon erode the earning power of tradesmen as apprenticeships are pretty much the only career option for so many of our young men at the moment.

Basic minimum income ideas seem to finally be gaining ground and they would allow for smaller businesses on a wider scale. That'll include self-employed handymen, men with ven, labourers, all that kind of stuff.

Qualitymark · 03-11-2015 11:23AM

We've gone screwy about minding "the taxpayer" and "the shareholders" rather than minding each other. In France, government contracts virtually never go outside the country. In Ireland, the printing industry was ruined by government sending work to cheap printers in Eastern Europe - throwing skilled men on the dole - and the whole inner-cities textile industry was priced out years ago by vulture chain stores. And the tax and welfare regime is scarcely friendly to "the self-employed" - ie plumbers, carpenters, electricians, handymen, mechanics, seamstresses…

If we are to have a strong and self-reliant working class we need to give them work and honour.

Sleepy · 03-11-2015 11:45AM

Buttonftw - While I think it's an improvement over our current social welfare system, I'm still not fond of the idea of relatively large sections of society living off of the efforts of others.

I don't have the answer myself. The old ideals of having people simply working shorter hours to ensure there's work for everyone I can't see working unless it's rigidly enforced and falls down on the fact that a large section of our society can't be educated to the level required to work within the labour intensive industries we are able to compete in at a global level that generate enough value to maintain our living standards.

While one could argue that a tax base more focused on unearned wealth (i.e. inheritance taxes, capital gains etc.) could help reduce the disincentive to work that a societal model based off of redistribution of wealth encourages, such arguments unsurprisingly meet very strong opposition from very powerful sections of society.

Pawwed Rig · 03-11-2015 03:27PM

I think it needs to get to a point that those on benefits support the people working. For example you rarely see independent windows cleaners/gardeners about anymore. I would love not to have to do mine. Even getting a cleaner is nearly impossible yet 30-40% of my wages every week goes to those that can't find work?
I would be an advocate for work for benefits.

03-11-2015 04:24PM

Sleepy wrote: »

Buttonftw - While I think it's an improvement over our current social welfare system, I'm still not fond of the idea of relatively large sections of society living off of the efforts of others.

I don't have the answer myself. The old ideals of having people simply working shorter hours to ensure there's work for everyone I can't see working unless it's rigidly enforced and falls down on the fact that a large section of our society can't be educated to the level required to work within the labour intensive industries we are able to compete in at a global level that generate enough value to maintain our living standards.

While one could argue that a tax base more focused on unearned wealth (i.e. inheritance taxes, capital gains etc.) could help reduce the disincentive to work that a societal model based off of redistribution of wealth encourages, such arguments unsurprisingly meet very strong opposition from very powerful sections of society.

Meh, we have more than enough to go around, including work if we want. The idea of "competing" with low-wage economies is a fabrication in many if not most cases. However assuming it's valid, high-paid jobs will remain high-paid jobs with people working til they lose their hair for a chance at them. Low-paid jobs providing tangible goods and services locally (woo) will be more viable than they currently are.

03-11-2015 04:26PM

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I think it needs to get to a point that those on benefits support the people working. For example you rarely see independent windows cleaners/gardeners about anymore. I would love not to have to do mine. Even getting a cleaner is nearly impossible yet 30-40% of my wages every week goes to those that can't find work?
I would be an advocate for work for benefits.

Basic minimum income would address that. Seasonal work would also be more viable, yay tourism etc.
I'd love to know where you're getting 30-40% from btw.

Pawwed Rig · 03-11-2015 04:42PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'd love to know where you're getting 30-40% from btw.

It is the effective tax rate in Ireland for those of us on modest income.

Sleepy · 03-11-2015 04:44PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Meh, we have more than enough to go around, including work if we want. The idea of "competing" with low-wage economies is a fabrication in many if not most cases. However assuming it's valid, high-paid jobs will remain high-paid jobs with people working til they lose their hair for a chance at them. Low-paid jobs providing tangible goods and services locally (woo) will be more viable than they currently are.

When we have an unemployment rate of just under 10% (with more than have of it long-term) that's a 7 year low, I think you couldn't be more wrong about us having enough work to go around, never mind work that can be done by those without modern skillsets.

Low-paid jobs might provide goods and services locally but by their very nature, they're low-paid and we're not exactly a low-cost country to live in. And realistically, how many window cleaners, hairdressers, dog-walkers etc. can those currently working in decent employment support?

04-11-2015 01:00PM

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

It is the effective tax rate in Ireland for those of us on modest income.

And government spending only goes on dole payments?

Sleepy wrote: »

When we have an unemployment rate of just under 10% (with more than have of it long-term) that's a 7 year low, I think you couldn't be more wrong about us having enough work to go around, never mind work that can be done by those without modern skillsets.

Low-paid jobs might provide goods and services locally but by their very nature, they're low-paid and we're not exactly a low-cost country to live in. And realistically, how many window cleaners, hairdressers, dog-walkers etc. can those currently working in decent employment support?

Did you just ignore the basic minimum income bit? There's no panacea but it'd be better than the trap many are stuck in now.

ECHR: Poor white boys get "a worse start in life".

Comments