Latest news with #CommissiononRaceandEthnicDisparities
Yahoo
05-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Young white men do have problems, but they need to man up
Last weekend I was on a panel at the Oxford Literary Festival (sponsored by The Telegraph, if you please) and the topic was the Southport riots. In considering the subject, the excellent Tony Sewell, aka the Lord Sewell of Sanderstead, aired the view that one big cause of social unrest in Britain is that white working class boys are left behind. They're bottom of the barrel, whether in school, higher education prospects, health, happiness, or projected income. Sewell, the chair of the 2021 Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities report, knows the stats well. His report found that 'systemic racism' is not what lies behind disparities in outcome in Britain: it's class, and poor white youth, mostly boys, do by far the worst. This wasn't the first time the topic of struggling working class white boys hit the headlines. There has long been a panic about the effect that feminism, and more recently MeToo, and the discourse of 'toxic' masculinity have had on their psyches, leaving them no choice but to turn to that barbarian Andrew Tate in droves. The topic has once more caught fire since Netflix's Adolescence came out, the miniseries about an English teenage (white, working class) boy accused of the murder of a female classmate. So revered is Adolescence as a – perhaps the – document for our times that Keir Starmer has on multiple occasions intoned reference to it in Parliament, mistakenly and hilariously calling it a documentary. It has provoked anti-woke fury among those who believe that a white boy is the fall guy in a story of violence by another ethnic group; it is always safe, they point out, to blame a white cisgendered heterosexual male. And it has provoked that whiny mixture of faux indignation and performative sentimentalism among those who feel, as their sons turn to Tate (or know boys who do), that they must hold their nose and take seriously the idea that perhaps this squashed, left-out, derided demographic – once the backbone of the Empire – has been given a raw deal since in the decades since wokeness began its institutional creep. Despite its zeitgeistiness, I have refused to watch Adolescence. I may be among the last few, at least in the chattering classes, who have not tuned in. There are several reasons for my refusal. One is that the miniseries is obviously far too depressing. When I turn on a streaming platform these days, I want something jollier, something more along the lines of The Real Housewives of Salt Lake City or The White Lotus. The second is that, while I recognise that this group is suffering, I simply don't feel inclined to indulge in either the huge pity party, or the jamboree of toxic-masculinity-awareness-raising, that Adolescence has inspired. Yes, masculinity is in crisis, but the truth is that masculinity has always been in crisis – ask any social historian. And as with all moments of media-friendly crises of masculinity, we find ourselves talking about men like they are helpless little flowers. It is odd. Working-class white boys are found to be treated badly, and therefore to do badly and act badly. One of the big issues cited is that they don't know their worth or purpose anymore in a society constantly calling them 'toxic'. Very sad, but it is possible to get over such slights and thrive anyway. Women faced derision for almost all of history for simply being women – they were seen as neurotic, nervous, intellectually inferior, limited to backbreaking domestic labour and breeding. Any who tried to go beyond this were stymied, ridiculed and often simply barred. Of course there was no educational encouragement or even guaranteed access, unlike that enjoyed by every single child in Britain today. And it was completely acceptable for husbands to beat or rape wives seen as intransigent, or just irritatingly alive. And still women by and large obeyed the law and tried to get on. Some sniping about 'toxic masculinity' is hardly a life sentence. And if boys are small men, and men are meant to be tough (which is why so many are frustrated now, we are told, in this 'feminised' society) can't they hold strong even in the face of adversity? The idea that if we don't give them all a big cultural and social hug they'll commit violence and become arsonists and misogynists isn't good enough. Why can't we expect them to be decent, hardworking people … even in tough circumstances? It might be good for them, even though we'd immediately be told we are crushing them with 'unrealistic expectations'. Yes, young white men need help and encouragement and resources and schemes and mentorships and to not be told they are worthless. But they are not entirely victims either. They do have a bit of agency; they do have their own will. I don't wish the draft on anybody's son but it does occur to one that in days gone by, the majority of these rootless boys without obvious or easy prospects, held back by socioeconomic class (in far more rigid, brutal times) would have donned a uniform and gone off to war. Many would have died, which is a tragedy that is every parent's worst nightmare. For many, though, it was the making of them: they were scalded into men, they tasted valour, heroism and – for the more thuggish – the satisfaction of the appetite for brute force and combat, sanctioned by the state. Let Britain be saved from a war like those that our 20th-century forefathers and mothers experienced. May conscription never be necessary again. But let us find some way to get our ne'er-do-wells, stragglers and miserable young men into something bigger than themselves, to stop them gravitating to all that is lower, nastier and meaner. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
05-04-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Young white men do have problems, but they need to man up
Last weekend I was on a panel at the Oxford Literary Festival (sponsored by The Telegraph, if you please) and the topic was the Southport riots. In considering the subject, the excellent Tony Sewell, aka the Lord Sewell of Sanderstead, aired the view that one big cause of social unrest in Britain is that white working class boys are left behind. They're bottom of the barrel, whether in school, higher education prospects, health, happiness, or projected income. Sewell, the chair of the 2021 Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities report, knows the stats well. His report found that 'systemic racism' is not what lies behind disparities in outcome in Britain: it's class, and poor white youth, mostly boys, do by far the worst. This wasn't the first time the topic of struggling working class white boys hit the headlines. There has long been a panic about the effect that feminism, and more recently MeToo, and the discourse of 'toxic' masculinity have had on their psyches, leaving them no choice but to turn to that barbarian Andrew Tate in droves. The topic has once more caught fire since Netflix's Adolescence came out, the miniseries about an English teenage (white, working class) boy accused of the murder of a female classmate. So revered is Adolescence as a – perhaps the – document for our times that Keir Starmer has on multiple occasions intoned reference to it in Parliament, mistakenly and hilariously calling it a documentary. It has provoked anti-woke fury among those who believe that a white boy is the fall guy in a story of violence by another ethnic group; it is always safe, they point out, to blame a white cisgendered heterosexual male. And it has provoked that whiny mixture of faux indignation and performative sentimentalism among those who feel, as their sons turn to Tate (or know boys who do), that they must hold their nose and take seriously the idea that perhaps this squashed, left-out, derided demographic – once the backbone of the Empire – has been given a raw deal since in the decades since wokeness began its institutional creep. Despite its zeitgeistiness, I have refused to watch Adolescence. I may be among the last few, at least in the chattering classes, who have not tuned in. There are several reasons for my refusal. One is that the miniseries is obviously far too depressing. When I turn on a streaming platform these days, I want something jollier, something more along the lines of The Real Housewives of Salt Lake City or The White Lotus. The second is that, while I recognise that this group is suffering, I simply don't feel inclined to indulge in either the huge pity party, or the jamboree of toxic-masculinity-awareness-raising, that Adolescence has inspired. Yes, masculinity is in crisis, but the truth is that masculinity has always been in crisis – ask any social historian. And as with all moments of media-friendly crises of masculinity, we find ourselves talking about men like they are helpless little flowers. It is odd. Working-class white boys are found to be treated badly, and therefore to do badly and act badly. One of the big issues cited is that they don't know their worth or purpose anymore in a society constantly calling them 'toxic'. Very sad, but it is possible to get over such slights and thrive anyway. Women faced derision for almost all of history for simply being women – they were seen as neurotic, nervous, intellectually inferior, limited to backbreaking domestic labour and breeding. Any who tried to go beyond this were stymied, ridiculed and often simply barred. Of course there was no educational encouragement or even guaranteed access, unlike that enjoyed by every single child in Britain today. And it was completely acceptable for husbands to beat or rape wives seen as intransigent, or just irritatingly alive. And still women by and large obeyed the law and tried to get on. Some sniping about ' toxic masculinity ' is hardly a life sentence. And if boys are small men, and men are meant to be tough (which is why so many are frustrated now, we are told, in this 'feminised' society) can't they hold strong even in the face of adversity? The idea that if we don't give them all a big cultural and social hug they'll commit violence and become arsonists and misogynists isn't good enough. Why can't we expect them to be decent, hardworking people … even in tough circumstances? It might be good for them, even though we'd immediately be told we are crushing them with 'unrealistic expectations'. Yes, young white men need help and encouragement and resources and schemes and mentorships and to not be told they are worthless. But they are not entirely victims either. They do have a bit of agency; they do have their own will. I don't wish the draft on anybody's son but it does occur to one that in days gone by, the majority of these rootless boys without obvious or easy prospects, held back by socioeconomic class (in far more rigid, brutal times) would have donned a uniform and gone off to war. Many would have died, which is a tragedy that is every parent's worst nightmare. For many, though, it was the making of them: they were scalded into men, they tasted valour, heroism and – for the more thuggish – the satisfaction of the appetite for brute force and combat, sanctioned by the state. Let Britain be saved from a war like those that our 20th-century forefathers and mothers experienced. May conscription never be necessary again. But let us find some way to get our ne'er-do-wells, stragglers and miserable young men into something bigger than themselves, to stop them gravitating to all that is lower, nastier and meaner.
Yahoo
28-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Free speech matters to Kemi Badenoch and it should matter to you
Freedom of speech is valuable, but not merely for letting individuals say whatever they fancy within the law. It's valuable primarily for the sake of the public good. For if dominant orthodoxies are false, misshape public policy, and go unchecked, we all suffer. Free speech allows us to interrogate reigning ideological emperors – on race, transgender, colonialism, public health and climate change, among others – to find out if their new clothes are a reality or a dangerous illusion. On transgender self-identification, there's plenty of reason to doubt its intellectual coherence. When a biological male believes his inner, authentic self is female, what exactly does he think being 'female' is? How is he not trading on gender stereotypes that feminists taught us to abandon decades ago? As Dame Hilary Cass's report has argued, there's even more reason to doubt that the health of young people is well served by uncritically allowing them to align their bodies with their imagined genders by making irrevocable physical changes. Or – as JK Rowling has long been contending – that the safety of women in changing-rooms and toilets should be jeopardised by forcing them to suffer the presence of men who happen to identify as female. On race, 'progressive' anti-racism threatens to deepen racial alienation and conflict in Britain by importing radically pessimistic American ideas, rooted in America's history, that espouse a dualist opposition between 'white' and 'black', seeing 'whiteness' as irredeemably racist. People should not be penalised for expressing such ideas, but nor should they be for advocating Martin Luther King's approach, namely, that people should be judged by the content of their character, not the colour of their skin. As the report of Lord Sewell's Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities argued in March 2021, Critical Race Theory doesn't map onto the complex realities of race in contemporary Britain, which include considerable elements of progress and signs of hope. We should not lose sight of the fact that Britain is one of the least racist countries in the world – one reason so many black and brown refugees want to come here. On colonialism, the reduction of the history of the British Empire to a cartoonish litany of racism and oppression is not only historically and morally insupportable; it trashes an important part of the record of the West, corroding faith in it. It puts wind in the sails of Scottish separatists who justify the disintegration of the United Kingdom as an act of repentance from an evil, British, imperial past. It makes the surrender of the strategically important Chagos Islands seem like the decent thing to do. And it exposes UK taxpayers to Caribbean claims of £18trn reparations for historic slavery, and, according to a recent Oxfam report, a further £53trn in reparations for the colonial exploitation of India. It's vital people should have the freedom to challenge these dogmas, just as we should the received wisdom in public health and climate change. That's not because it's wrong, necessarily, but because without subjecting metropolitan groupthink to scrutiny and debate we could be saddling ourselves with destructive policies that harm the interests of the United Kingdom, as well as jeopardising the liberal values we all want to defend. Our freedom to express doubts about, to question, and to contradict reigning orthodoxies is vital for the public good. It's vital for the political triumph of truths important for the mental well-being of children, the physical safety of women, the building of a harmonious multi-racial society, the effective remedy of unfair disadvantages between ethnic groups, the survival of the United Kingdom, the self-confidence of the West, and justified resistance to opportunistic claims of reparations for slavery and colonialism. Of all our current political leaders, only one has a consistent record of grasping the importance of what's at stake here: Kemi Badenoch. As women and equalities minister, Badenoch championed sex-based women's rights and had the courage to take on the political indoctrination of children in schools. As minister for equalities, she backed the Sewell Commission and launched its report. And as international trade secretary, she rejected claims that Britain owes its economic prosperity to colonial exploitation, especially slavery. Because we care so passionately about freedom of speech, we set up the Free Speech Union five years ago, a non-partisan public interest body that stands up for this vital human right. Since then, we've fought over 3,300 cases. The FSU was recently described as 'far-right' by Wikipedia, but 40 per cent of those cases are gender critical women, almost all of whom identify as left-wing. Free speech is something people of all political persuasions should defend because without it we cannot defend any of our other rights. Kemi Badenoch has made it clear how much she cares about it by ennobling the two of us and we hope Britain's other political leaders will soon come to realise its importance as well. Lord Biggar is the Chairman of the FSU and Lord Young is its General Secretary. They are both introduced into the House of Lords today Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
