Social exclusion is the root of societys ills

#1
A lot of debate on the problems with UK society focuses on the symptoms but not the causes. Interesting article here by Libby Brooks arguing that the roots of these 'symptoms' are more profound:

If it's a decision made freely, and properly supported, there is nothing essentially wrong with having a baby before you're twenty. But, instead of condemning the root causes, like social exclusion, poor sex education or lack of opportunities, it is the young women themselves who have been continually vilified by the press and politicians as slags or scroungers - despite there being no evidence that teenagers get pregnant to procure better housing or benefits.
 
#2
I'm sure if it was a case of
social exclusion
there would be rather less babies born. I always assumed that it was social inclusion between man an woman that led to babies :lol:

Once again, the finger points at anyone but the parents. The parent/s of an 11 year old child, who was not only drunk but participating in sex as well. What were they doing? Why did they not know where their 11 year old daughter was and who with?
I'm sure that the majority of arrsers would know where their 11 year old was and what she was upto.
Poor housing and poor sex education has nothing to do with becoming an unmarried parent, but a decent and moral upbringing has.
Many years ago, the working class lived in substandard housing and lacked a decent education, but the fear of becoming pregant and the stigma that went with it was a most effective contraception.
Nowadays, unmarried mothers are positively applauded for their actions.
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
#3
bossyboots said:
I'm sure if it was a case of
social exclusion
there would be rather less babies born. I always assumed that it was social inclusion between man an woman that led to babies :lol:

Once again, the finger points at anyone but the parents. The parent/s of an 11 year old child, who was not only drunk but participating in sex as well. What were they doing? Why did they not know where their 11 year old daughter was and who with?
I'm sure that the majority of arrsers would know where their 11 year old was and what she was upto.
Poor housing and poor sex education has nothing to do with becoming an unmarried parent, but a decent and moral upbringing has.
Many years ago, the working class lived in substandard housing and lacked a decent education, but the fear of becoming pregant and the stigma that went with it was a most effective contraception.
Nowadays, unmarried mothers are positively applauded for their actions.

Totally agree
Why are the parents not more eaccountable
The young lad who recently got shot in Moss side was reportardly shot at 03 00
He was 15 ffs the Taliban wouldn't mince around Moss side at 0300
Its no good his mother stating he was a good kid I have sympathy for her but why didn't she have him in at an appropriate time?
Parents blame the schools buit it dosen't need to be a teacher to explain the facts of life
The facts of life are
If you are shagging at 11 and you get pregnant then the life over
No going out at 18 you have a 7 year old who is at school
You could be granparent at 22
A great grandparent at 33
What sort of parents are they to allow an 11 yo to get drunk in the first place?
Shell suited chain smoking to$$ers no doubt more worried about their Giro's than their kids I suspect
 
#4
bossyboots said:
...Poor housing and poor sex education has nothing to do with becoming an unmarried parent, but a decent and moral upbringing has.
Many years ago, the working class lived in substandard housing and lacked a decent education...
UK society has built a cycle of behaviour and values which are self-perpetuating. Most human beings don't wish to be in a decaying lifestyle, but want to break that cycle. But I think people who are in the 'underclass' or are socially excluded are often there because they don't possess the moral and emotional and intellectual resources to break out.

I think the article is asking wider society what is in its DNA that has enabled the 'underclass' to exist? Which is a better question than berating the parents who are locked into their culture. If you know no better than the 'universe' you've been dragged up in you repeat the behaviours as normal and acceptable. How do people know there is a different way of living?

Did not UK society choose to uproot its communities and reshape around industry rather than protect the managable communities which were largely self regulating? If so we have to create paths back into better communities, with a sense of responsibility. The 'haves' are too easily safe in their bunkers and the 'have nots' are caught in a cycle of low aspirations.
 
#5
Social exclusion is a perpertuating cycle.

Poor neighbourhoods have poor schools who produce unskilled uneducated and underencouraged youth who never have the opportunity or the incentive to break out and so end up consigned to the area, resign themselves to it, have a family and beome the parents of underprivileged children in underprivileged areas going to underprivileged schools...

Unfortunately, the weight of an government of NGO initiatives rarely develop the momentum to help transform entire communities and it is even rarer for communities to dvelop the impetus themselves.

Part of the problem is that, until very recently, social care organisations, health authorities, job centres and schools have all been singing from different hymn sheets and rarely has there been a combined and concerted effort to target resources and encourage a more nuclear community.

Fortunately, this state of play is changing and, certainly in the organisation and community that I work in, there is slowly starting to be an engagement between organisations and the people that they serve.

However, it is only a trickle and the moment and, sadly, whilst it is a start, it is by no means making the progress that many people would want, partly due to the reluctance of people to reforge community links.

A huge root cause that I see in the development of young children, particulalry in young males, is the lack of any kind of guiding male figure in their lives, be it an uncle, grandfather or, rarely these days, their own dads.

I have recently started a project to encourage local men to get morre involved in their families and youth groups in order to provide these figures for those who, for whatever reason, may lack them and, so far, it is developing at quite a pace; But, like anything else, momentum is the key.

People in deprived areas have been let down by one successive government and organisation or another because they never stick at one plan long enough to provide a firm base to build on. Fashionable policies and snazzy community ideas come and go and, when the funding gets pulled, leave those who gave their time as volunteers or who came along seeking to gain something, flapping in the wind.
 
#6
BoomShackerLacker said:
I think the article is asking wider society what is in its DNA that has enabled the 'underclass' to exist?
This is true. In my opinion, a large part of the reason is Gordon Brown's policy of "lifting people out of poverty". This is being done by running a naive, socialist wealth redistribution scheme via the tax and benefits systems.

For many families, the difference between a minimum wage job and what they can make on benefits does not justify working for a living. We have millions unemployed in this country yet businesses are crying out for unskilled immigrants from Eastern Europe.

Brown has to accept that his policies have failed. You lift people out of poverty and social deprivation by giving them the ability and incentive to earn a living for themselves.
 
#7
Some editing and deleting.

It's an important topic which I'm sure most can discuss as adults.

Leave the pointless sweary rants in the Naafi Bar.

PTP
 
#8
I think the "lad" and "laddet" culture that exists in schools is also a huge part of the problem - where people can be singled out for wanting to do well, and progress using social mobility. Amongst this group of people, you gain more respect for spending 7 years in prision, that you would for spending the same amount of time studying to become a lawyer.

I have become even more aware of this since I have been at university, where the younger students take a lot of abuse from the tracksuit wearing locals. Infact, I spent almost eight years in green, including time on operational tour, yet I still feel nervous when walking around my town at night, because it is obvious I am a student.
 
#9
AL,

I agree that there seems to be a 'dumb is cool' attitude. This is not a new thing however it certainly seems to me to be more aparant these days.

PTP deleted a few post on here (quite correctly) which were rants against young mothers. I believe the constant berating of those young people who do not fit into our sterotypes of 'good and decent' only serves to widen the gap between us (grown-ups with jobs and education) and them. In the 'old days' there were punks, mods and rockers, rock and roll and all sorts of things the the older generations felt would be the end of civilised society. It turns out that we can all enjoy some 'rolling stones' and society is not affected at all.

To summaries, all young generations are trying to find their own way in the world, just as we did. Things will be different, yes, deal with it. We are however a 'generally' moral species and, as long as we emphasise the important hings to the young, I see no reason why it will turn out any different than previous generations. So thets try to embrace those who are disaffected and 'bring them back into the fold' rather than chastise them.

(that was a touch more eloquent than my previous post, eh PTP!! ;-) )

Ski.
 
#10
Ancient_Mariner said:
BoomShackerLacker said:
I think the article is asking wider society what is in its DNA that has enabled the 'underclass' to exist?
This is true. In my opinion, a large part of the reason is Gordon Brown's policy of "lifting people out of poverty". This is being done by running a naive, socialist wealth redistribution scheme via the tax and benefits systems.

For many families, the difference between a minimum wage job and what they can make on benefits does not justify working for a living. We have millions unemployed in this country yet businesses are crying out for unskilled immigrants from Eastern Europe.

Brown has to accept that his policies have failed. You lift people out of poverty and social deprivation by giving them the ability and incentive to earn a living for themselves.
To blame low wages soley on the socialists is absolute bunkum. Being offered the pittence that used to be called a wage by employers before the minimum wage was brought in gave no incentive to those on benefits. The minimum wage coupled with family tax credits has done much to help get people into work (even if it does keep getting screwed up)

The Tories just let the poor rot!
 
#11
countdokku said:
Too many stupid whores are sh1tting out too many worthless, inbred, fat, ugly, retarded b@stards into the Gene-Pool. That's is a major cause of "society's ills".
Breeding is a privilage, not a right. Single mothers should get no benefits. If they can't support their spawn, it should be taken off them and put up for adoption(or humainly distroyed).
Society is far too soft on slags, junkies, neds and the bone-idle. If you are not willing to work and contribute to society, you deserve no support form the rest of us. Starve to death in the gutter, where you belong.
End Rant.
As the child of a single parent I take some issue with that statement. I grew up in a single parent family on a council estate surviving off benefits and whatever casual work my mum could get that didn't involve her being paid officially so our benefits didn't stop.

I have a PhD, my brother is a nurse, my sister a lawyer, my other brother a soldier with a degree in child psychology and my other sister a professional footballer.

My upbringing, fiscally and environmentally speaking, was no better or worse than some of the people you have so casually written off. The difference is that I got lucky. I had a natural ability and the early recognition and support to develop it. You cans top the f*cking violins right now.

People who live in these environments aren't stupid. Intelligence doesn't work like that. But they are trapped at devalued by people like you.

Get over yourself. Feel free to descend from your ivory tower some time and actually try to solve some of the wrold's problems rather than bitching about them.
 
#12
amazing__lobster said:
I have become even more aware of this since I have been at university, where the younger students take a lot of abuse from the tracksuit wearing locals. Infact, I spent almost eight years in green, including time on operational tour, yet I still feel nervous when walking around my town at night, because it is obvious I am a student.
There is a suggestion that UK society is polarising, certainly in the way you've illustrated brilliantly. A swathe of society might be moving centrifugally it seems towards one end of the test tube, and this social underclass has then gilded a set of entrenched values about their own culture which largely says, if anyone wishes to transcend this environment then there'll be hell to pay. But I think your point picks up on an important reaction, and that is fear.

When those in any 'underclass' see the student, or my son in his Scout's uniform for some reason, there is a stark vision that their own world has become static, as they observe others 'transcending' to new experiences. For lack of better language. When you see your own 'prison' so starkly, and don't have a clue how to exit, I think people react with denial, anger, despair and worst of all hopelessness.

The latter being the next felt emotion after fear. To deal with these states of mind requires moral courage based on values, based on beliefs. Those with moral courage stand up, challenge the paradigm, cause it to fracture. If your well of moral courage is shallow, you quickly return to type, as you are isolated and the pain becomes sufficient for you to choose conformity.

As society seems to say: 'all values are equal' it reinforces that you can reject, say, goodness, because it is morally equivalent to any other form of behaviour. Therefore 'goodness' is as valuable as 'badness'. Is not that the message of popular culture?

Of course those that transcend often play fast and loose with the culture they've left behind. Having stepped into opportunity they wear their past as a badge of street credibility, celebrating its worst aspects as 'worthy' or 'fun' when in reality they are redundant and provide nothing.
 
#13
As a social experiment, I call for the axing of the New Deal program and the shifting of funds attributed to it to raise the level of baseline benefits. That is those benefits paid to single, childless persons.

Give it about 5 years and see if it has had an effect on the teenage birthrate.
 
#14
BoomShackerLacker said:
A lot of debate on the problems with UK society focuses on the symptoms but not the causes. Interesting article here by Libby Brooks arguing that the roots of these 'symptoms' are more profound:

If it's a decision made freely, and properly supported, there is nothing essentially wrong with having a baby before you're twenty. But, instead of condemning the root causes, like social exclusion, poor sex education or lack of opportunities, it is the young women themselves who have been continually vilified by the press and politicians as slags or scroungers - despite there being no evidence that teenagers get pregnant to procure better housing or benefits.
She's obviously not spent any time in a council estate. I had large numbers of young girls in my year who got pregnant specifically so they could get a council flat of their own and the trappings that come with being a single mum.
 
#15
Agent_Smith said:
BoomShackerLacker said:
A lot of debate on the problems with UK society focuses on the symptoms but not the causes. Interesting article here by Libby Brooks arguing that the roots of these 'symptoms' are more profound:

If it's a decision made freely, and properly supported, there is nothing essentially wrong with having a baby before you're twenty. But, instead of condemning the root causes, like social exclusion, poor sex education or lack of opportunities, it is the young women themselves who have been continually vilified by the press and politicians as slags or scroungers - despite there being no evidence that teenagers get pregnant to procure better housing or benefits.
She's obviously not spent any time in a council estate. I had large numbers of young girls in my year who got pregnant specifically so they could get a council flat of their own and the trappings that come with being a single mum.
Why would you choose to be a single parent?
 
#16
[/quote]As the child of a single parent I take some issue with that statement. I grew up in a single parent family on a council estate surviving off benefits and whatever casual work my mum could get that didn't involve her being paid officially so our benefits didn't stop
Same here i raised my son as a single parent,he is now 24 just graduated and has started work £35k job.



Diane :D
 
#17
There are a number of reasons.

The rewards. They get a council flat (they say that they cannot stay at their parents, and are effectively homeless. Council has obligation to house). They get their rent paid, they get child benefits, single parents benefits, unemployment benefits, income support, and pay no tax.

Naivity: A great deal of them don't actually know how hard it is to bring up a child on their own. They come from a one parent family, so they effectively don't know any better.

They are looking for someone (or something) to love them. A lot of these girls did not have the greatest and most caring of parents, so they lacked the love and attention that most normal children get from both parents (or single parent in some cases). In those sort of cases, girls look upon a new born as someone who will give them back unconditional love.

There are a whole set of reasons, each case being different, but tragically the same!
 
#18
BoomShackerLacker said:
Why would you choose to be a single parent?
Um is that a wah?

The analysis of figures in 14 European countries found that Britain has by far the highest proportion of single mothers in the European Union.
The report says that in 2001, more than 8% of British households were headed by a single mother aged 18-35, while the UK also has one of the highest rates of benefits for single mothers.


snip

The correlation across countries is quite striking,” said Gonzalez. “The countries with the highest incidence of single mothers are also the countries with more generous benefit, and vice versa . . . Spain, Greece and Portugal with small numbers of single mothers also have lower benefit levels. The UK and Ireland are both generous with benefits and have a higher incidence of these families.
Having said that a bit of further research has turned up a few more facts.

http://www.bath.ac.uk/eri/pdf/op-ferrazzi.pdf
Lone parenthood is also treated differently in European social assistance policies. Looking at
benefits payable to lone parents, there are countries, such as Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium,
Germany, Luxembourg and France, which pay high levels of benefit; countries, such as UK,
Ireland and Greece, which grant a medium level of benefit; and finally countries, such as Italy,
Spain and Portugal, which base their policies on discretionary local measures and on a low level
of benefit.
Yet the number of single parent familes in the countries with the highest level of benefit is at a lower level than the UK.

Must be some other factor at work than just the amount of free cash available.
 
#19
Agent_Smith said:
They are looking for someone (or something) to love them.
I think that probably says it all.

But love is an act of the will, and, going back to my point about society saying 'goodness' is morally equivalent to 'badness', therefore, 'to love' is as valued as 'to reject'. Society frames all behaviours as personal choices of equal value.

British society has tended to adopt this dominant philosophy as ethical, because it allows the individual to choose their own destiny. But, going back to the girl who is craving substance, love, security in her life, and falls pregnant, that really isn't a true choice. It's a short term expedient, to experience something of what she's missed, until the dreadful reality of sleepless nights kick in.

Society has said 'we won't tell you how to live' because this is a pluralistic society embracing mulitple codes of living, but it ends up with 'victims' due to absentee leaders. The girl is a victim without choice. Plainly an unethical society by outcomes. Then, not to show moral leadership is unethical. But that is what pluralistic societies reject without knowing the consequences.
 
#20
Everyone I hear on the media seems to have one mantra "It's not my fault...society is to blame...noone told me about it..."

If we are not to just decay into some pastiche of the latter days of the roman Empire, then perhaps we might try some PYT therapy..."Pull yourselves together."

Let everybody be informed of their responsibilities. Let everyone be helped to fulfil them. Even if that means tough love!!*

Frankly the last decent book on social work was Samuel Smiles' "On Self-help".


*BTW..no, that is not the one that involves dressing up. Sorry.
 

Similar threads

Top