UK: Class background remains a barrier to accessing opportunities in later life, even among those who are successful, new research has found
This is about averages only. Smarter people may be able to rise in life despite a poor start. But there is no doubt that money is only a limited help in conferring social prestige in Britain. Members of the hereditary aristocracy can sometimes be rather poor but will still be prestigious in Britain. And people from a poor background who have somehow made a lot of money will often be dismissed as "nouveau riche". You can win the biggest lottery in the land and still be "common"
So is there any way to acquire social prestige and the advantages that brings in Britain? There are two but neither can be put on like a coat. Essentially you have to BE the sort of person that an upper class person normally is.
The best-known of those avenues to high acceptance in Britain is that old old method: Education. But not just any education. You have to have had most or all of your schooling from a prestigious private school. Eton and Harrow are the leading names there but there are rather a lot of private schools in Britain and there are quite a few who will give you the education you need to fit seamlessly into upper-class life.
Such schools will ensure (for example) that you have "a good seat" (can ride a horse well) and can shoot (with a shotgun). Even the children of the "nouveau riche" could gain acceptance if they went to a "good" school.
There is also a smaller cohort who just fit in naturally despite a humble background. As Toby Young has pointed out, the higher social echelons tend to be on average more intelligent. So what comes naurally to an upper class person will largely be the same as what comes naturally to a high IQ person.
I benefited from that during my year in Britain. I didn't try for it but my high degree of social acceptance would be the envy of most upwardly ambitious strivers in Britain. I even had an aristocratic girlfriend, which is not a bad index of acceptance. More on that here.
A study of 8,118 professionals and higher-level managers found that those who came from a prosperous background were much more likely to move around the UK, and ended up in richer areas when they did move, than those with working-class parents.
Moving to a richer area meant better access to well-paid jobs and better schools, which meant that people from poorer backgrounds were “unable to close the gap” on their peers.
In an article to be published this week in the British Sociological Association’s journal Sociology, Dr Katharina Hecht, of Northeastern University, in Boston, US, and Dr Daniel McArthur, of the University of York, said that it was likely that wealthy parents had more resources to help their children buy a house.
The two researchers carried out a longitudinal analysis of census data about people born between 1965 and 1981 who were working in higher managerial and professional occupations by the age of 30 to 36.
They examined whether people had moved home over a distance of at least 28km from when they were aged 10 to 16, and compared the occupations of their parents, how often they moved home and the level of affluence of the local authority district they moved to.
Of those with higher managerial and professional parents, around 60% made at least one long-distance move, while only 30% of those whose parents’ occupations were classed as “semi-routine” or “routine” had moved areas.
“Among higher managers and professionals, those with advantaged backgrounds lived in more affluent areas as children than those from disadvantaged backgrounds,” said McArthur and Hecht, who was formerly based at the Politics of Inequality research centre at the University of Konstanz in Germany.
“This area gap persists during adulthood: when the upwardly mobile move, they are unable to close the gap to their peers with privileged backgrounds in terms of the affluence of the areas they live in – they face a moving target.
“Therefore, even when the upwardly socially mobile – who grew up in less-advantaged places and are less likely to move long-distance – do move area, they are unable to close the gap to their intergenerationally stable peers who started out in more affluent areas.”
The researchers say that for women in higher professions, differences in family background correspond to the difference between “living in economically mixed areas on the south coast, such as Portsmouth, and living in affluent areas of the London commuter belt, such as Brentwood”. The difference was less dramatic for men.
“Geography shapes access to opportunities to accumulate wealth including the highest paying jobs, higher house prices, and opportunities for entrepreneurship,” they said.
“Affluent parents will be better able to facilitate … moves to high cost but opportunity-rich areas such as London or the South-East.
“The children of higher managers and professionals are likely to have wealthier parents and hence receive larger transfers of wealth. They will be able to afford houses in more expensive areas, net of income, than their counterparts from less advantaged backgrounds. As a result, wealth is likely to play an important role in explaining why those from advantaged backgrounds move to more affluent areas than the upwardly mobile.”
The head of the Social Mobility Commission, Katharine Birbalsingh, has said there should be less focus on getting poor pupils into Oxbridge and more moves to improve people’s lives in smaller steps.
In her first report as commissioner, she said that occupational mobility had been fairly stable for decades and that it was not true that social mobility had been getting worse on all counts.
Research by the Sutton Trust earlier this year found that social mobility had become much more limited, with those who lived in rented accommodation as children now far less likely to own their own homes in later life.
It found that many people now had a greater chance of falling down the class structure than moving up.
*********************************************************
State Dept. Moves to Global Push for 'Gender-Affirming Care'
Is the U.S. State Department about to classify Sweden, Finland, and the U.K. as human rights abusers? According to an internal memo from Secretary Antony Blinken (leaked to me by an officer in the department’s Foreign Service) and circulated among employees last week, the answer might be yes.
The memo represents an effort by Secretary Blinken to carry out President Biden’s Executive Order 14075 from last June. That order instructs agencies of the federal government to do what they can to stop “conversion therapy” for “LGBTQI+” people. Following its release, Biden appointed Jessica Stern as Special Envoy to Advance the Human Rights of LGBTQI+ Persons, a position created by the Obama administration but left unfilled under Donald Trump. Stern, who goes by “all pronouns,” had previously served as executive director at OutRight Action International, an advocacy organization with a permanent presence at United Nations headquarters in New York.
OutRight has borrowed arguments against “conversion therapy” for sexual orientation (where the evidence against the practice is strong) and applied them, unscientifically, to “gender identity” (where studies have consistently shown that cross-gender identification in children is, for the vast majority of those who experience it, a passing phase). This strategy of piggybacking off public ignorance about the difference between homosexuality and transgenderism is by now familiar. And lest it be thought that politicians know better, Biden himself seems unable to differentiate between sexual orientation and gender identity.
The Biden administration has defined “conversion therapy” as any effort to “suppress or change an individual’s . . . gender identity.” The Blinken memo cites as an authority the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, an organization that, like the American Academy of Pediatrics, has fallen victim to capture by a small but vocal and well-organized group of ideologues, among them Jack Turban. The memo relies on the United Nations Independent Expert on sexual orientation and gender identity, Victor Madrigal-Borloz, to clarify that “conversion” means only efforts to change a transgender identity into a “cisgender one.” Thus, a hypothetical scenario in which a child is put under intense pressure to become trans, even if this means medicalization, would technically not count as “conversion.” At the first signs of a child’s gender distress or confusion, the only legitimate, “human rights”-respecting outcome of treatment, according to the Biden administration, is social transition followed, in most cases, by body modification.
Predictably, the Blinken memo contains no evidence or arguments for its claims about “conversion therapy,” but instead defers to “every major medical and mental health association in the United States.” In fact, however, medical groups like the AAP and AACAP have not followed the science on this issue, instead allowing activists to dictate policy positions based on pseudoscientific claims, egregious mischaracterizations of available studies, and, in some cases, outright fabrications of data. Anyone with above-average intelligence, a basic grasp of scientific methods, and enough time and patience to master the literature on this issue will easily come to the same conclusion. Medical authorities in Sweden, Finland, and the U.K. have already done so, as has Florida. France and Australia may soon follow suit.
Ominously, the Blinken memo defines “conversion therapy” to include not only “electric shock” and “corrective rape” but also “talk therapy.” That’s right: using psychotherapy to help a child in distress about her changing body feel more comfortable in it rather than undergo expensive, risky, and irreversible hormonal and surgical interventions is, according to the State Department, no different from electrocuting gays and lesbians in order to “liberate” them from their innate sexual attractions.
The problem, for countries like Sweden, Finland, and the U.K., is that medical authorities in these places have concluded over the past two years that the evidence for pediatric “gender affirming care” is extremely weak and that, as a result, hormonal and surgical interventions are (as Finland’s COHERE put it) “experimental.” Sweden and Finland are now instructing clinicians who deal with minors to utilize an approach that emphasizes talk therapy as the first line of defense and “affirming” drugs only in extreme situations, if ever. Sweden has banned gender surgeries for minors—surgeries that are practiced in the United States, notwithstanding the repeated gaslighting of gender clinics and left-of-center media outlets.
The Blinken directive effectively turns American consulates and embassies into global “gender affirming” spies. Embassies are instructed to “submit robust information on the so-called ‘conversion therapy’ practices” of host countries “as part of the annual Human Rights Reports.” Jessica Stern’s office will then devise an “action plan to combat the practice across foreign policy and foreign assistance lines of effort.”
The harms from the new policy will be tangible. First, bullying countries into not providing talk therapy to youth in distress over their developing bodies will, if successful, harm gay youth. Gender nonconformity and associated distress are very common phases of gay and lesbian youth development, as confirmed by research, clinical experience, and many firsthand accounts. If not allowed to talk about their feelings, these teenagers will be pumped full of synthetic hormones; some will find themselves under the surgeon’s knife. In Iran, being gay is punishable by death, but the condemned can avoid this fate by agreeing to “sex change” procedures. It is a sad irony that under the new Biden-Blinken policy, the Ayatollahs’ attitude toward homosexuality is now considered more in line with human rights than Europe’s most progressive welfare states. The Biden administration’s manipulation of American public solicitude for gay people in the interest of radical gender policies is nothing short of cynical.
Second, making “gender affirming care” a foreign policy requirement will dilute the moral authority of America’s broader commitment to human rights. Are foreign leaders now to believe that China’s persecution of its Uyghur minority, Venezuela’s use of arbitrary detentions and torture against regime dissidents, and the Taliban’s systematic oppression of women and girls are all on par with, say, Sweden urging its psychologists to help kids feel comfortable in their own bodies? Transgender activists will argue that ending “conversion therapy” and pushing back against other state-sponsored abuses are not mutually exclusive, but of course they are—and pretending otherwise will empower critics of the United States to argue that our understanding of human rights is absurd.
Third, even taking at face value the Biden administration’s own goal of promoting the wellbeing of transgender-identified people, it is hard to see how the new directive accomplishes that. What happens when an impoverished Sudanese teenager begins hormone therapy or gets a mastectomy and serious complications arise, as they so often do for these procedures? Medical services in many developing countries are notoriously subpar, and if risk of serious complications from specialized and as-yet experimental hormonal and surgical interventions is high in the United States, that risk is compounded where transitioned minors have no access to specially trained doctors with adequate medical equipment. It’s hard to see how rushing kids to experimental gender transition in countries without proper medical infrastructure serves their health needs.
Further, for countries with deep suspicions toward the West—countries, in other words, likely to be the most intolerant of transgender-identified people—the association of cross-gender identification with American foreign policy enables traditionalists to frame social change as cultural imperialism. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, youth medical transgenderism is a worthy goal, it defies reason that American soft power can aptly promote it.
https://www.city-journal.org/state-dept-launches-international-gender-pressure-campaign
******************************************************‘Don’t Tread on Our Kids’: Brittany Aldean Faces Pushback for Conservative Opinion
Last month, country music wife Brittany Aldean made ripples online when she took a strong social media stance against allowing children to go through gender transitioning.
In the openly conservative influencer’s words, her comments that were “taken out of context” were labeled “transphobic” by multiple mainstream media outlets and progressive country music counterparts.
After Twitter backlash from singers Cassadee Pope and Maren Morris, the latter of whom referred to Aldean as “Insurrection Barbie” in a critical tweet, Aldean responded by releasing Barbie-inspired merchandise reading, “Don’t Tread On Our Kids.” Proceeds from the apparel will benefit Operation Light Shine, an organization fighting child exploitation and trafficking.
To the negative reactions, she responded on air, “I’ve never had a conversation with either of these people. This is simply based on opinion and political status.”
The beauty influencer went on Fox’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight” Sept. 1, where she made herself clear, “I’m advocating for children.”
“I think that children should not be allowed to make these life-changing decisions at such a young age,” Aldean told Tucker Carlson. “They are not mature enough. They should have parents that love them and advocate for them regardless. We have ages on everything, right? We have it for cigarettes, we have it for driving, we have it for military, voting. Yet for some reason people think that we can let a child choose their gender so young? It’s very baffling to me.”
Aldean went on to describe the irreparable harm that early gender transitions can cause, stressing that these actions have “huge consequences … children are too young, not mature enough, to make those decisions and they’re life-changing, like you said. They may not be able to have children one day, there are so many consequences to doing that at such a young age. And us as parents, us as a society—regardless of political status—should be able to sit back, speak our minds about it, and fight for these children.”
According to Aldean, the support for her outspoken statement has been overwhelming.
So much support, especially [from] people that have children. … [Y]ou have the other side of that, too, and that’s fine, people are entitled to their opinions. But that’s just it. We as conservatives have a very hard time having an opinion, especially in society today, in the media, in relationships, in the workplace, and it’s very, very sad. But, a lot of support within Nashville and just friends and family.
In coincidental time, TheGreenRoom PR Firm dropped her country star husband, Jason Aldean, after years of working with the “Dirt Road Anthem” singer. In a statement to Billboard, it claimed:
Music has always been and remains The GreenRoom’s core focus, so we had to make the difficult decision after 17 years to step away from representing Jason. We aren’t the best people for the gig anymore, but will always be big fans of his music—he is one of the greatest live entertainers in country music.
With 10 albums and multiple CMA Awards and nominations under his belt, country sensation Aldean himself has been vocal about his conservativism, with a late 2021 Instagram caption reading, “I will never apologize for my beliefs or my love for my family and country. This is the greatest country in the world and I want to keep it that way.”
Historically, Hollywood has not been friendly toward right-leaning celebrities. Conservatives who have chosen to be outspoken on supporting Republican candidates, or on issues such as life and gender, have faced backlash or cancellation.
“Grown Ups” actor Rob Schneider, a frequent Adam Sandler co-star, recently told TheBlaze’s Glenn Beck that he would gladly be outspoken about his conservative beliefs at the cost of his career, a statement met quickly with internet mockery.
Actor and comedian Tim Allen has professed the difficulties of being a conservative in the spotlight.
Other notable cancellations such as comedian Dave Chappelle and author J.K. Rowling have faced angry online mobs for deviating from the politically-correct narrative surrounding transgenderism.
Christian Toto, editor of HollywoodInToto.com, told The Washington Stand that the backlash against the Aldeans is no surprise.
The modern left will use any excuse to ‘cancel’ those who don’t agree 100% with their worldview. A singer shouldn’t be punished for something his wife says, regardless where one stands on the comments. Plenty of Americans agree with Mrs. Aldean’s stance. Should they lose their professional connections next? They just might.
However, according to Toto, the cancellation of conservative celebrities provides an opportunity for innovation that breaks away from the Hollywood and Nashville norms.
“There is an upside here, though,” Toto told The Washington Stand. “Free-thinking creators are finding new success by going solo. Free speech platforms like Rumble video, along with services like Patreon, allow independent-minded artists to pursue their careers without industry gatekeepers. John Rich raced up the iTunes charts with a protest song, ‘Progress,’ without any mainstream media or industry support.”
*******************************************************
Rogan, Rowling and Chappelle prove the online mob has no power
Why is anyone still listening to the Wokesters? They’re not a majority — or even close to being one. They have no Army, Navy or Air Force. They don’t even matter in the marketplace. The only power they enjoy is the power the rest of us have chosen to give them.
We should stop.
As the events of the last six months have neatly demonstrated, almost everything that the woke demand can be dismissed with a single word: “No.” To be effective, wokeness requires its targets to fold at the first hurdle. If we refuse to acquiesce, there’s no Plan B.
For years now, non-woke Americans have chosen to cower beneath their desks when presented with an ever-more-absurd set of demands, unaware that we could have lopped off the belligerents’ knees with a single, well-timed demurral. At long last, that seems to be changing.
Take J.K. Rowling, who has been lambasted for claiming that biological women and trans women are not exactly the same. A steadfast holdout against Internet bullies, the author has not merely refused to bow to the loudest voices within transgender movement; she has begun to make hay out of their attempts to cancel her. Rowling’s latest novel, “The Ink Black Heart,” is a murder mystery about an artist who is “persecuted by a mysterious online figure” for being a transphobe (sound familiar?). Upon release, the book went straight to the top of the best-seller list.
Or take comedian Dave Chappelle, who also ruffled feathers with his jokes about transgender people in his Netflix show “The Closer.” At no point since the online mob began its relentless assault against him has he elected to apologize. Instead, he has said, “I don’t give a f–k, because Twitter is not a real place.” Which, of course, is correct.
Online, Chappelle is a bête noire. In the “real place” — i.e., in the real world — Chappelle’s supposedly “controversial” shows have been such a smash hit that Netflix has just picked up four more of them. “If you’d find it hard to support our content breadth,” Netflix wrote in a recent memo to staff, “Netflix may not be the best place for you.”
Another point scored for the real world.
Slowly, but surely, “No” seems to be catching on. Among the other institutions that have recently learned to push back is George Washington University, which told students who called for conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to be fired from his lecturer position that the college supports “the robust exchange of ideas and deliberation” and that “debate is an essential part of our university’s academic and educational mission.”
The Dallas Cowboys flatly refused to back down from a partnership with Black Rifle Coffee Company, which uses gun names in its products. And Spotify successfully resisted a month-long, all-hands on deck attempt to defenestrate its star podcaster, Joe Rogan.
How weak is Big Woke becoming? Consider that Larry David — the least politically correct man in America — has been nominated for one of this year’s Emmys. Earlier this year, David was asked why he hadn’t been canceled yet. “I don’t know,” he replied. “It’s a very good question.”
At this rate, he’ll never find out.
At times, it has been tempting for Americans who have grown exhausted by the woke onslaught to conclude that the best way to fight back against the trend was to produce content that is explicitly anti-woke. That conclusion was wrong. Charles Krauthammer once quipped that Fox News had “discovered a niche market in American broadcasting: half the American people.”
So it is with mass entertainment. Most consumers like choice more than scarcity, prefer quality to political correctness, and dislike being told what they can and can’t enjoy based on nothing more noble than what a handful of self-appointed tastemakers currently happen to be “offended” by. It is no accident that the biggest movie of this year — indeed, of the last few years — “Top Gun: Maverick” is fun, patriotic, and apolitical. That’s the sweet spot at the box office.
https://nypost.com/2022/09/10/rogan-rowling-and-chappelle-prove-the-online-mob-has-no-power/
****************************************My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
No comments:
Post a Comment