Glass Ceiling, Glass Floor, The Right Class Will Get All They Ask For

In perhaps the least surprising news story since it was revealed that our royal 'betters' were (and probably still are) racist, Nazi loving scumbags in the 1930's. The Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission found that the majority of people who enter into higher paying careers are, rather unsurprisingly, from privileged backgrounds. In fact those from professional backgrounds, with doctors or lawyers as parents, are significantly more likely to enter into professional employment than those from unskilled backgrounds, meaning parents working as labourers or shop-workers.

The report found that, whilst ability played a significant role in shaping people's post-educational opportunities, it was far from a level playing field. When rehashing old, well trodden ground, they acknowledged the "ways and unmeritocratic private school wage premium could come about; for example, if recruitment in to high earning occupations is biased towards people educated in private schools" (page 41). That is a direct quotation from the paper and has been left as it is written, but if you were to replace the word IF with WHEN then you'll find yourself staring at a Britain we recognise from the stories of the bad (good depending on your class) old days when social mobility for the working class was a pipe dream. Not at all similar to today, where it just heavily increases your chances to the point where you're almost guaranteed success if you're a toff, and gives you more obstacles to overcome than a run through the 'tough mudder' course if you're not.

They went on to explain how the system continues to keep the classes in their places, "as a result of shared interests, hobbies, accent, cultural norms, through networks, social circles, and personal networks, to name but a few." What a 'few' they are! It immediately brings to mind a small line written about the growing income inequality in America by Bob Herbert, "it's like chasing a speedboat with a rowboat", which I believe works just as well in this context. In theory you give everyone an equal opportunity to make it, but then you allow one group to continue a practice that equips every advantage to their kind, to the extent that they can exert comparatively little effort compared to the competition and win, and then once all the advantages are in places, you pull the trigger on the start gun and expect some degree of fairness. The commissions paper even goes as far as to point out that what economists call "signalling", the identification of another as belonging to their social class, is beneficial to obtaining a higher paid job (summary page iv) . Do the commission offer up any real solutions to these issues? Yes and no.

Firstly, they suggest fighting too much inequality between private schooling and state schooling by, and this truly is a cracker even for economists pretending to understand social issues, cutting the choice available to parents about which state schools to send their children to. That's not where the problems are at because they'll just move, more on that in the second paragraph, or send them to private schools. In fairness, they do acknowledge that this would have the knock on effect of simply sending more well off brats to private schools and creating even more privately educated toffs. You can hear the collective cries of middle England "oh no we cannot have poor Beatrice and Montague mixing with those oiks named Dillon or Chantelle". However, by stating that this is a risk of limiting the options, then why not offer up any other solutions? What I'd suggest would be an outright ban on private schooling. Do that and watch the quality of state education rapidly rise, I can guarantee it. If the Bourgeois gits decided to object, well, fuck them, there's more of us.

They follow this by mentioning the Grammar school system, which I am more familiar with than private schools, as I was born and raised in one of the last few bastions for this form of inequality in the UK. The report states that "low attaining children from better-off families were more likely to attend a Grammar school" (page 41), something I've witnessed first hand. Of all of the people I knew growing up one kid, ONE among many, many kids, attended a Grammar school. They were out of the way, not local enough, in the posher areas of the town. Yes, you could pass your 11+, but then if it was over-subscribed it would go to admissions criteria which included; children with family members currently there and distance from the school considered to be within the 'safe walking distance'. It is well known that areas with good schools are gentrified rapidly, so in effect, they simply become a state funded method for perpetuating inequality. The economists behind the paper even highlight the likelihood of poorer children attending poorer schools, but as is befitting their lack of understanding of the social causes of inequality, it fails to see the reason for this.

The report then turns it attention to the post-education barriers, such as unpaid internships, which unfairly exclude those from disadvantaged backgrounds, or more precisely non-advantaged backgrounds (because realistically only those on a very good wage could support an internship for however long it lasts in somewhere like London). Suggesting radical ideas such as, stopping unpaid internships and that existing legislation to prevent discrimination actually be enforced. Again, not quite far enough but at least it has fully identified a couple of the problems.

Finally, the report concludes with a challenge to the government in that "if politicians are serious about their expressed desire to increase social mobility in the UK they will need to address barriers that are preventing less advantaged children from reaching their full potential and remove barriers that block downward mobility". Judging by the governments list of educational reform policies, damaging the chances of the working class at all levels of education in this country, I'm going to guess that is not going to be happening. Just have a look at this article about how "some academy sponsors are 'harming' prospects of deprived pupils" or this article showing how much more poorer graduates will owe upon completion of their course than their rich classmates.

Clearly then, this inequality in education and beyond is what it has always been, deliberate and ideologically driven. Expecting this or any other mainstream government to do anything about it is pointless. They like the inequality. Capitalism requires it. It requires the scapegoats it provides. The best way to do this is by leaving the working class as poorly educated as possible. By asking economists of all people to look into the subtleties that lay behind the causes of inequality, rather than those more equipped with the knowledge to offer real solutions, proves what this report is... Governmental lip service to those demanding that they at least be seen to try to bridge the gap between the rich and poor. A gap they are delighting in actively widening. It's a non-story and fog to hide all that inactivity.

Nigerian Cannibal Cafe?

A story has been circulating the social media world over the last couple of days that has shocked many, a "NIGERIAN restaurant shut down for serving HUMAN FLESH", certainly would seem like a worthy thing to be appalled by if there ever was one.

The author of this story, Jay Akbar, writes that "a Nigerian restaurant has reportedly been shut down for serving human flesh to its customers" and that the police discovered "human heads which were still dripping with blood in plastic bags". Normally, I would easily dismiss articles like this as being the racist, fear-mongering, xenophobic nonsense a rag like the Daily Mail produces to cause divisions among the working classes. This story was different. It was linked to an earlier report of the story on the BBC Swahili website. 

So could it be true that a small group of Nigerians have been serving some other Nigerians flesh of their kin? The fact it was first reported on a news source which is not synonymous with lies gives it an air of credibility. 

For once it seemed like a story published by the Daily Mail which sought to expose a specific ethnic minority within our society to prejudice was telling the truth.

Except that it probably wasn't. 

At the very least it certainly was not reporting 'news'.

After typing in to a search engine "Nigerian resurant human flesh" followed crucially - as you should do with all dubious news stories on the internet - by the word "debunked" it revealed something not at all surprising. It was a racist article that seeks to cause a divide and fester suspicion among ethnic groups in our multi-cultural society. 

The search revealed a plethora of articles and web pages dating back a couple of years on the subject. Ranging in scope from relatively decent sources of information, such as the Independant (dated February 2014), to the Nigerian tabloid newspaper Osun Defender (dated September 2013) which I am assuming is the earliest source of the story. The articles are nearly word for word identical. 

I will not even begin to pretend that I know anything about the Nigerian tabloid who published this story, what its motives are, its political or ideological stance is, or if it is indeed a reliable source of information. I will assume, perhaps falsely, that it shares similarities with our tabloids. Similarities including, but not limited to, the falsifying or manipulation of data, outright lying (which they constantly have to edit once caught out), using unreliable or uncorroborated accounts from questionable individuals, and most likely, a penchant for sensationalism. 

If these are indeed characteristics of the original source I would take the whole story with a fist full of salt. 

It is worth noting that the original story went a whole SIX MONTHS before it was first picked up by an English news source and then, rather misleadingly, made to seem like a new discovery and not something which apparently happened six months prior. Then a whole year passed before it was picked up again and packaged as a new and shocking revelation about Nigerian society!

This could easily be dismissed as lazy journalism. A simple case of a journalist net checking on the sources, making sure the facts are correct, and being thorough all around. For many who have discovered this, it probably would be the conclusion they draw from the evidence. However, I know something far more nefarious lies beneath the surface. 

Which brings me neatly to the point of this post, there is nothing new about these allegations against African peoples. It is a long and worn out trope of the imperialist, racist mindset, which sought to label indigenous 'savages' of our colonised lands as qualitatively differing from the superior European people which murdered and displaced millions in a series of 'civilizing missions'. The natives peoples were predominantly imbued with characteristics closer to apes and other species in the natural world than they were 'humans'. They were even used as exhibits in "human zoos". 

It was in these earliest distant European colonies in the Americas, Africa, South East Asia and so forth that the shoots of the cannibal myth emerged. It seeps into every aspect of our Western Eurocentric culture. Connections between savagery, cannibalism and dark skin tones are everywhere, from the historical justifications of slavery, to the modern justifications for suffering and poverty in the often neglected and exploited parts of the world, through to depictions of natives in Hollywood movies. 

That is what I fear is at play here in these articles doing the rounds on social media. They are too easily being used as a justification for the continued racism, social exclusion and material deprivation of a large part of our society - and of the world - by highlighting a perceived 'otherness' that accounts for their position.

Let us not forget for a moment that the same 'group' who benefit most from the extreme exploitation of non-white European ethnic groups, are the same people who own most of the major media sources world wide, the rich white capitalists. It is very much in their collective interests now, as it has been historically, to continue to propagate these myths about the savage peoples of the world and to get the rest of the population to believe them. It's a role (nearly) all media sources play in maintaining existing power-relations, and one in which they revel.


Edit:
After posting this I found a website with a quote from a police stating that there was no such raid on a restaurant serving human flesh. Alongside many others carrying the same or longer quotes.

http://www.oasesnews.com/newsmakers/item/3668-refutation-restaurant-serving-human-flesh-as-meat

The General Election Result, Tories In Government, And The British Love Of Sadomasochism

I've been unable to fully articulate just how I feel in the couple of days since the result of the GE2015. In fact I've been almost inconsolable. Snapping at people over the smallest things. Hell, I've even thought about just flat out severing all connections with the self interested scum who voted for the Tories. The uncaring, unthinking, sadistic, class traitors among my friends, who I know exist but will never admit to it. How or why would people look at the record of their incumbent government, even when being held back to a pathetic extent by the LibDems, and think "yes sir, please may I have more of that?"

I, like many others throughout these shores, feel partially guilty for this. We were repeatedly told to vote Labour to keep them out. We were told "that's the only way to ensure a more caring society". Even when I have belief that so-called 'tactical voting' to ensure the lesser of two evils prevails is what is wrong with our system, with all the polls pointing towards the difference progressive politics offered by the SNP, Plaid, and the Greens could make towards Labour's pathetic attempts to re-balance the inequality in society - even though it still wouldn't be anywhere near enough - I still feel a more than my fair share of guilt over the outcome.

I shouldn't feel guilty, and neither should anyone else who voted against austerity, but I still do. The guilt should be firmly laid at the door of the turkeys who voted for Christmas. The dead directly caused by the politics of the Conservatives should be laid at the feet of the masses among the 37% of Tory voters which do not belong to the top 1-5%. The small minority I'm sure the party will do their very best to improve the lives of, the minority who love to inflict pain on those less fortunate because they are not affected. As long as they don't have to see them from their gated communities, or their mansions in Kensington, or wherever they've chosen to inbreed these days, they are happy. Unlike the class traitors who said "exploitation, pain, and humiliation? Thanks for offering, I'll have more of that please. Oh, I do love a bit of extreme anal knife fucking", who must actively enjoy the Sadism of voting in a heartless Tory elite. I'm not going to say none of them knew what they were voting for, In fact I'm willing to be generous and say they all did. They've voted for more divisions in society, even larger levels of inequality, more scapegoating of the powerless, more tax breaks for millionaires, deeper cuts on the vulnerable, and given an endorsement to the government that gave us our first UN investigation into violations against our own people! Lovely stuff.

In the interest of fairness - a strange courtesy they'll never afford anyone else - I cannot solely blame the Tories and their voters, much of it must be accredited to our poor excuse of a workers party. The Labour party, who are continuously called left wing in some kind of weird joke aimed at true socialists/communists/anarchists, weren't really offering too much different. Both the Tories and Labour had plans to fuck the poor. Labour would have just given them a condescending cuddle after they were done slapping them about a little, rather than the Tory plan of wiping their genitals clean on the curtains, leaving a floater in their toilet, and wandering off to fuck the next person. Their ridiculous adherence to austerity politics and Tory neo-liberal economics is what alienated the true left from continuing their traditional voting plans. The voters Labour relied upon for support in many areas across the country to boost their numbers somewhat. The one's who would begrudgingly put an X next to the Labour candidate because they knew somewhere, deep among the party, there was at least a few decent people. Nowhere was this more evident than in Scotland, which as a nation deserted them in unprecedented numbers and practically wiped Labour off their political map. I am willing to bet was not all down to the pro-independence camp and that a huge proportion of them would have been anti-austerity voters.

It may well be gone forever if they do indeed listen to Alan Johnson and "celebrate our entrepreneurs and wealth creators and not leave the impression they are part of the problem". I fear a shift even further away from where they once belonged is beckoning, and whilst the party may retain its core voters who have it ingrained within them that they are Labour voters and will always vote that way, they will hemorrhage more and more of those who see past their moderate Toryism. As happened in this election.

Instead of voting for Labour and running off home to wash the taste out of their mouths, many in the true left looked for other parties, ones who still believed in reforming the morally bankrupt capitalist system, but had much more leftist credentials. A genuine working wage, plans to give greater voice to communities, a reduction in planetary exploitation for the benefit of profiteering, nuclear disarmament. I could go one for ages about how much more left, the slightly left were, than the phony left. Collectively, they were held up as 'radical' when compared to Labour, dangerously so by our right-wing press. The were anything but radical. In many ways they are simply what Labour used to be. Parties that could see beyond the benefit of the companies, their friends in the city, the interests of corporations. Unlike Labour they were prepared to do more than take small measures (albeit desperately needed ones) to placate the poor, whilst continuing to allow the poor be scapegoated and offering policies that worked against them as a fix for our nations economic ills.

So I will own my guilt for the Tories getting in to power for five years, unchallenged, to systematically make lives so, so, so much worse for every vulnerable person or family in the UK - thankfully at the very least excluding pensioners, they'll never hurt pensioners, they vote for them - because I can think of at least two groups far more guilty.

One last thing, I urge anyone who is reading this and wants a more inclusive, representative politics (to tide us over until the revolution at least) to sign up to this petition, let's make seats match the votes.

Why I Chose Marxism

Perhaps the title would be more accurate if it was why Marxism chose me, but a large number people reading this would probably identify with most of the reasons I give, and would have come to a different ideological understanding of the world. So I will stand by my assertion that I chose Marxism, whether this was a conscious or forced choice is, for the most part, irrelevant. What people may not be able to identify with are the individual milestones in my life that shaped my outlook from a very young age, the questioning of the status quo, the naive understanding that things were just not right, which eventually led to my discovery of an alternative, better ideology. These were all experienced in isolation from my friends, family, and community. This is not to say that this same process of evaluation of the world around us was not simultaneously occurring among my peers, just that I never shared my thoughts with others until recently. There was no sense of the community leading me towards my encounter with Marxist thought, I sought out an explanation and identified with it by myself, albeit with a few small kicks in the right direction.

That rather neatly brings me to the point of this post. I often hear people I am boring to death, with yet another rant about the rich fuckers exploiting the earth/working class/pretty much anything they can extract surplus value from, say, why are you a Marxist?  This question has always been a difficult one for me to answer, not because it is particularly hard, or because I do not have a coherent answer to the question, it has always been because any answer I would give would require a substantial amount of time to provide. Most people simply do not want to devote that amount of time to a question they believe is relatively simple. The truth is that it is anything but simple.

The first time I can remember questioning the way wealth was dispersed among society I was aged seven or eight, it was Christmas day, and as was traditionally the case my rather meagre, but none-the-less appreciated, range of toys was bringing me the usual amount of rather fleeting joy. This was when the invitation to join a friend at his house was extended my way. Until that day I had never been to a friends house on Christmas day, I was not expecting to notice just how much more wealthy he was than I, even though there had always been an acknowledgement by myself that he had more money. Where my clothes had always been tatty, cheap, hand me downs, he was always relatively turned out for the time, wearing all of the latest sports gear that was desired so much during the mid to late nineties, Upon walking in to his house I was shocked by the sheer range of what I would now consider consumerist junk, but at the time thought was among the most important things in the world, he could afford. Playing with each and every one of his gifts for the next couple of hours felt like receiving a kick in the knackers, with every new thing he showed me that sickness and pain I felt grew exponentially. After a few hours I could no longer take it, I felt for the first time in my life like I was worth considerably less than someone. That he had more 'things' proved it to me. I ran home and cried for an hour or so until my father came in to comfort me. Why I remember this is because it was the first, and only time, he had done this. The image is so vivid in my mind because I now come to realise this is something he too suffered from, the knowledge that despite being surrounded by the poor, the working class, we were very much in the underclass, and as I grew older I learned we were suffering the worst effects of poverty at the time.

Life carried on much the same for a while, we were on appallingly inadequate benefits, we had no money, I grew to acknowledge this. Whilst I did not like the strain it put my family under, that it put me under, I did not think I could do anything about it. After a couple of years this changed. As a family we were now in employment, for a while at least, we had a few pennies to our name. These new found earnings were not without a cost for my brother and I. We were also in employment. The nature of the work my family had managed to secure was pay-per-unit work, and the pay was terrible! To make ends meet my brother and I was required to work a couple of hours a day making light fittings during term time, during the school holidays we worked in the factory making them, and on the weekend we delivered them by van. Those were the good times in this period. When the amount of money paid per unit fell it was not uncommon for us to be taken out of school and put to work. Where friends were enjoying their childhood, going to school, and playing football with friends, we were working up to ten hours a day. My education suffered significantly. During the early years of my education I remember being classed among some of the brightest pupils in my year, my parents were proud, but by the time I had finished my primary education I had slipped from the top of the pile to the middle of the pack and I never fully recovered. I cannot fault my parents too much for this, we needed the money, and riding around in that rickety death trap of a van with my brother was fun. I remember with great fondness driving down a road and the doors suddenly blowing open on the back exposing us to the cars behind, we struggled to close the doors whilst holding up boxes of brass connectors and plastic-moulded lights. We still laugh about it occasionally today. We were more than happy to help out, not only because we had an acute knowledge of our economic inequality, but because we knew that was what you had to do when you was as poor as we were. Why the Thatcherite political class, and the uncaring society in which we live, largely ignore the effects of extreme poverty on children is another matter.

Moving into secondary school my memories of what led me to choosing to identify with Marxist ideology become less nostalgic. It was tough. Really, really tough. Most people would identify the period of their life that they are in secondary school as being the hardest part of their life. You are developing a sense of individuality and trying to find a place for yourself. The differences between people, between you and your classmates, become more pronounced than at any point in your life. Hyper-divisions exist everywhere, even between people with very little that marks them apart. You feel alone in almost every sense of the word. When picking my options for secondary education my choices were limited, the grammar schools were now out of the equation, I had fallen too far behind where I once was. This left a few options, but due to the cost of travel this was whittled down to two. The local one with a bad reputation or the village based one, a bit farther out, but with a fairly decent reputation. It served the slightly richer community in the villages and small towns just outside of my own. Having now reverted back to benefits, my parents decided I should go the better option, I could get back to where I once was with a push. Looking back I cannot help but feel this was the worst decision they could have made. There was not many of us at this school on benefits. The difference between myself and my classmates was immediately noticeable, they had access to everything I did not and I quickly found myself slipping from the 'grammar stream' to the bottom/middle once more. The economic disparity between my family and theirs affected me in other ways, in worse ways. My inability to keep up with their 'fads' and other nonsense found me slipping more and more towards the outside of the mainstream, until I was both derided by those I was forced to be around and invisible to the rest. I did not want to be there. My attendance slipped from 100% in year 7 to just over 30% by year 11. It felt pointless to me. I was poor, I was not going to make it in this world. I just wanted to be done with it all and work. I needed the money as fast as possible so that I could no longer be the poor kid, the irrelevant mass in the classroom. Like most of the working class, being in school offered me nothing. You need money to succeed, it buys the freedom to learn. It affords the individual an escape all of the concerns that plague an adolescents mind. Once more I felt like I was worth significantly less than those around me, I was that kid crying on Christmas day again.

Fast forward a few years and I am in low-paid work. It is part-time at a local supermarket. Before that I had been out of work for over two years since leaving school. They had kicked me off benefits for not looking for work, when in truth I was and there was no work, I just did not follow their procedures to prove I had been. The lovely people at the jobcentre annoyed me with their implied accusations that I was simply lazy and so I gave up caring. I had enrolled in college as a way to pass the time. It was here that I first encountered Marxism, and whilst I agreed with much of what was said, I spent far too much time drunk to fully appreciate how relevant it was to me and the working class struggle. My studies at this point followed a familiar pattern, at first I was exceeding expectations, then as I became aware of my inability to afford university, alongside added pressures from home, I simply stopped going and let grades fall away. The main problem was the financial pressures from home after my father had lost his employment once again. It meant I was working near full-time hours in addition to going to college five days a week. I asked myself what the point was if I could not afford to go to university. I was needed at home. So once again, economic pressures and barriers had pulled me away from reaching my potential. I had become a vital part of the economic lifeblood of my household. It was at this point I started questioning everything in much more detail than before. I began reading and searching for an answer that explained why I was unable to achieve anything without being pulled back into deprivation. I remember spending large amounts of time thinking about the Marxist theories we had skimmed over in my Sociology class and decided read into it and to find out more.

Four years later and I was still working for the local supermarket, at just above minimum wage (by about six pence... the gits). I had read quite a bit of Marxist thought and I had found my place. I had found the truth behind the collective struggle experienced by vast swathes of people trying to achieve the great capitalist lie, like I once had, of raising themselves up from the working class to become 'successful'. I found myself constantly banging the war drum against the lazy bastards earning a fortune for walking around inspecting the shop once a month with a stick up their arses. I began to argue about their exploitation of us workers more and more by the day. Why should the owner be earning about a thousand times more than me for doing jack shit everyday? He had not even founded the company, he had just inherited this wealth. I argued about how much profit they were extracting from each hour of work with my fellow employees. It was then that I came to realise that I had chosen Marxism.

Shortly after this revelation the last thing holding me in my home town had been lost to me. Suddenly I had found myself enrolling into the only university willing to take a punt on me. I was going as a mature student, with little to no academic achievement behind me, but I was determined to succeed.
After my three years at university I had (very nearly) repaid the faith whoever decided to accept my application had in me, I missed out on my target of a first class degree by around one percent, it was a good result, far better than I would have predicted going in, but I find the struggle to lift myself from the lower reaches of the working class continues to this day. To date Capitalism has done nothing to help me, and many others like me, and that's why I will continue to choose Marxism.

Cheeky Rape Recipes With The Daily Mail

Wow! Just wow! The Daily Mail have actually gone and done it. The British edition of Der Stürmer have plunged to new inglorious depths the basterds. Incredibly, for that 'news' source, they have taken a different spin on their remit of smashing all sense of taste and human decency. For once they have not plucked a story out of the race hate, class war or casual sexism generators. Instead they have chosen to go for a 'cheeky' promotion on alcohol induced raping.

Just days after publishing these articles, "Two friends jailed for nine years after raping drunk woman, 18, in alleyway just minutes after meeting her for the first time on nightclub dancefloor", "Three guilty of drunken party rape", and "Britain has more rapists in jail than any other EU country thanks to tougher sentencing", all clearly and unarguably anti rape/rapists (despite some of the comments), they decide to publish an article seemingly excusing a form of rape.

Now I know many will read the article, "Fifty shades of booze! Nine clever cocktails (and cheeky ways to drink your date into bed)... inspired by the erotic movie", and argue that it is a harmless piece of journalistic crap trying to cash in on the 'fifty shades' hype through advertisement revenue generated by linking a poorly written article on cocktails to a movie based on a poorly written book about cocks. To many it would be nothing more than the usual click bait that accounts for 90% of the internet alongside porn and cat pictures.

However, to defend the article on the basis that it is about cocktail recipes is to ignore the importance of what lay between the brackets in the headline. 

A test of how important something is to changing the nature of an image or sentence is to simply remove it and see what remains. 

The sentence without the bracketed words reads: "Fifty shades of booze! Nine clever cocktails inspired by the erotic movie" which, whilst still eluding to the throwaway nonsense that the article will contain, tells the prospective reader that it will be a fun little article which may contain 'essential' recipes for anyone interested in drinking cocktails based upon the most talked about movie of the year so far. 

Reading the removed section of the headline alone paints a very different picture. It is not beyond the realms of possibility, in fact it probably does exist, for the self contained element of the headline to be a post/headline/thread on one of the many websites dedicated to the female hating section of the internet populated by the MRA's. 

If a headline, or at least a single but very important element of the headlines message, is the sort of disgusting crap you would be able to read on the sites run by so-called 'alphas' then you know it is rape apologist in its nature. Whilst I am not arguing that the woman who wrote the article is an MRA, the message within the headline is worryingly reminiscent of it. The Daily Mail, by virtue of promoting language like it on their website, alongside their usual repertoire of casual sexism, have just gone and legitimized it to their less critical readers.

The fact that the essential message of the article remains intact when you remove one third of the headline speaks greatly of the nefariousness of the removed sentence, "cheeky ways to drink your date into bed" is meant as a joke, an unfunny joke, and one in very poor taste. It is a product of the 'rape culture' that breeds morons like Dapper Laughs and his ilk. A culture that views the domination and control of another person's body without consent as not a big deal, as funny or "cheeky", and as normal. 

Evidently, it is also culture that the Daily Mail both believes is abhorrent and excusable at the exact same time. 

Do Ethnicity and Gender further compound existing class inequalities? (first year essay)

This is the second of my university essays I will upload, mostly as a safe place to keep them from being lost to me. It's also a slightly better piece of work compared to the travesty I had already uploaded, although a quick read through revealed that there are still plenty of mistakes present.
So once again, if it is useful to you as a tool for what not to do then go ahead and have a read, and whatever you do don't plagarise it... You will be caught due to the way this work was submitted.

*********************************************************************************

To many social class is no longer relevant in contemporary Britain, they argue that we now live in a classless society and everyone has an equal opportunity in life and that discrimination based on class, ethnicity and gender no longer exist. However, within this essay I will attempt to provide a persuasive argument for both ethnicity and gender still having a significant effect on already existing differences within social classes. By doing so I will attempt to demonstrate how the experiences of working class women would be different from the middle classes and men in general. In doing so I will highlight how this affects areas of their lives ranging from income to opportunities. In addition to gender, my essay will focus on ethnicity being a source of social division, touching upon subjects ranging from the equality movement to employment opportunities. After doing so I will offer an explanation to how both these categories within society exaggerate existing differences with social classes.

I will focus this part of my essay on how women’s experiences of inequalities are intensified as a result of their working-class backgrounds. Working class women can often be the subject of derogatory stereotyping, their behaviour towards both family and others often associated with deviancy from what is expected of feminine behaviour. When writing about class and gender, Beverley Skeggs illustrated how the middle-classes in Britain created themselves by demonstrating ways in which they were different from the ‘other’, the ‘other’ in this case being the working-class (Skeggs). This created the term ‘class’, and this process of distancing the middle-classes from the ‘other’ is still being used to differentiate between the middle and working class today. Examples of this can be seen often within our society such as the focus by political parties on the breakdown of the family unit, with single mothers being the main focus. This focus on single-parent family is important as it is often associated with working-class families. As Skeggs wrote “just think about the contemporary British Conservative government campaigns (at the 1995 party conference) which demonized single parents thereby (re)presenting working class women as degenerate, irresponsible and a threat to the national family” (Skeggs, in Mahoney and Zmroczek 1997: 125) although this example is from sixteen years ago, this attitude in the media and through politicians is something that can often be seen or heard today. This process of demonization stigmatises the working class female leading wider society to believe that single parent families thought of as working class, are the cause of many of the societal problems within everyday life.

It is not just single parent women who as a result of their working class background that can be at a disadvantage within society. Women throughout society are at a disadvantage in most professional occupations, as a result of this disadvantage women in general earn far less than men in work, known as the gender pay gap. Women make up almost 50% of the labour market in the UK, but earn on average far less due to the lower statuses of positions women hold. Meg Maguire writes about this inequality in her chapter in Class Matters: ‘Working-Class’ Women’s Perspective on Social Class. Maguire states that women are at a disadvantage when it comes to being employed within academia, although more than half of the students within higher education are female very few of these move into lecturing. Something she claims makes those that are in employment within this area ‘outsiders’ to the rest of the academy (Maguire 1997). The inequalities within this sector of paid employment do not stop at this Maguire goes on to explain that on top of the fact that fewer women go onto work within higher education those that do work in lower positions within the lecturing staff, something which is echoed generally throughout most organisations. She writes that “They are concentrated in subordinate positions within an occupation which is organised and managed by dominant male workers from the same occupational class and background” (Maguire 1997: 89). This over-representation of male upper and middle class workers in positions of power within organisations such as universities, large companies and banks has a large effect on the potential for progress in employment for females within that profession. This makes it hard for women to move up the company ladder due to the institutionalised sexism, often referred to as the class-ceiling, whereby women can see the way to progress through the company but cannot due to them being female.
This glass-ceiling effect is echoed in Pamela Abbott’s chapter on gender in the book Social Divisions, within she states that gender has a detrimental effect on the type of employment available to women. She states within that women are concentrated in the low paid manual areas of the employment market, often in caring roles or working in non-manual low paid jobs such as secretarial positions or as clerks in offices. These jobs, although many would consider them to be white-collar and therefore middle-class jobs, are low paid and therefore mean that these women are likely to be living on low-incomes close to the minimum wage available. Citing Payne and Abbott, she states that “Despite over 20 years of equal opportunities legislation, there is still clear evidence that the ‘glass ceiling’ (a barrier to women’s upward mobility into higher level positions) and the ‘glass wall’ (a barrier to women entering occupations defined as male) still act as barriers” (Payne and Abbott 1990 cited in Abbott: 88). This illustrates the divisions that are still present in society, and the obstacles that women face in employment if they wish to progress in their careers, or even gain entry into the occupation that they want to have a career in.

Divisions within society take shape not only due to class and gender but also are related to ethnicity; the background of the person can often lead to social exclusion from areas that other people may have an easier time accessing such as health care services, education and employment opportunities. Although social work can be criticised for failing many groups within society such as children under their care, the ethnic minority community it can be argued suffer an even greater level of negligence due to the effect of institutionalised racism or even racism from the individual social worker themselves. For this argument I will only examine the institutional racism that these communities may face when seeking help from social workers. This can lead to forms of social exclusion Dominelli writes that “The dynamics inherent in the racially exclusive tendency result in black people having limited access to the ‘goodies’ or caring services provided through social work intervention” (Dominelli 1992: 166). By this she means that the ethnic minority community often face huge obstacles in receiving state funded social care, such as community workers to help with everyday jobs around the home that they cannot do themselves due to age or disability or state funded accommodation in old age due to health or dependency. This can be linked to class as most of these services are used by working-class people in retirement through either age or disability. Ethnic minorities are vastly over represented in the working class due to the way that employment opportunities are often inaccessible to them due to their ethnic background. This income inequality is what I will now turn my attention to.

Minority ethnic groups within Britain are more likely to suffer from both poverty and unemployment, this inequality in employment is compounded by the fact that even when in employment the types of jobs and positions they hold generally are much lower paid and more disposable, for example low-skilled manual labour. This fact is highlighted by statistics taken from the Office of National Statistics, Annual Local Area Labour Force Survey 2001/02, the worst affected minority ethnic group was Bangladeshi men and women with unemployment rates at 20% for males and 24% for females, compared to the White majority groups at 5% and 4% respectively (Mason in Payne 2006: 112-113). These figures show just how unequal employment opportunities can be for minority ethnic workers in the UK, added to this Mason explains that during times of economic downturn in the economy minority ethnic groups suffer far worse in relation to the white majority with levels of redundancy (Mason). Unemployment is not the only form of discrimination that minority ethnic groups receive in the labour market, although some ethnic minorities are increasingly closing the gap on the white population in high pay jobs such as the Asian community in the UK, most groups are still at a disadvantage when it comes to employment in skilled and professional occupations.
This disadvantage in accessing the higher level jobs within society for some minority ethnic groups features in many studies conducted, Mason states that within the application process there is still a significant level of discrimination against those from minority ethnic backgrounds (Mason in Payne 2006). One study carried out matched two identical applicants, their CV’s were exactly the same in qualifications, and experience in that field of work was sent to companies from the Times 1,000 index. The only difference in the letters inquiring about future employment was the names of the people inquiring, Evans and Patel. The study found that companies were more likely to respond and when responding provided a better quality of response to Evans than their responses to Patel (Mason). This study highlights the institutionalised racism within companies, and the difficulties posed to minority ethnic groups when trying to achieve social mobility, due to the widespread levels of difference in levels of response given to both these fictitious candidates for jobs.

In conclusion, I believe that both gender and ethnicity play a major role in divisions within society. The role gender plays in intensifying social divisions can be seen in the way that public impressions of the working class female through both politics and media demonise the individuals as being deviant. They are stereotyped as having values differentiating from the middle-class norms held by society, and are perceived as being a threat. Added to this gender can act as a barrier in both attaining professional employment and in progressing through the corporate ladder, with both the glass ceiling and perceived male jobs providing potential barriers for women in achieving social mobility. The role ethnicity plays is a similar one to that of women in dividing society, the area of social care provides inadequate care for many ethnic groups in society through institutionalised racism, perceiving those in minority ethnic groups to be somehow less deserving of help provided. The lack of jobs opportunities and high unemployment rates with ethnic minority groups help perpetuate these class divisions based on ethnicity as many companies are either unwilling to employ ethnic minorities in high pay jobs or employ these groups in less stable jobs that are at prone to jobs losses much quicker in times of recession. Overall, I believe that not only do these divisions help to extend the class divisions in society I believe they are actually made much more intense for minority ethnic groups as a result of the class structure in the UK.

References

Skeggs, B. (1997) Classifying Practices: Representations, Capitals and Recognitions, in Mahoney, P. and Zmroczek, C. Class Matters: ‘Working-Class’ Women’s Perspectives on Social Class, London: Taylor and Francis, 123-139.

Maguire, M. (1997) Missing Links: Working-Class Women of Irish Descent, in Mahoney, P. and Zmroczek, C. Class Matters: ‘Working-Class’ Women’s Perspectives on Social Class, London: Taylor and Francis, 87-100.

Abbott, P. (2006) Gender, in Payne, G. Social Divisions, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 65-101.

Dominelli, L. (1992) An Uncaring Profession? An Examination of Racism in Social Work, in Braham, P., Rattansi, A. and Skellington, R. Racism and Antiracism: Inequalities, Opportunities and Policies, London: Sage, 164-178.

Mason, D. (2006) Ethnicity, in Payne, G. Social Divisions, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 102-130.

Do Not Despair Ladies! At Least There Is The Kitten Bowl For You To Watch Tonight

So it is Superbowl Sunday, all over the world people are anticipating one of the most watched sporting events of any calender year. People who haven't watched a single second of football all year will tune in for the one game that encompasses all that I enjoy about the sport. It will be intense, fast, and non-stop entertainment, even the advert breaks (I die a little inside for admitting this) are entertaining (depending on where you watch it). I think most recognise that people of all ages, sexualities, ethnicities, and genders around the globe can be counted among its viewership. Most. Clearly the cretins at the Daily Mail cannot be counted among these as the article "The claws are out! Puppy Bowl gets competition as Kitten Bowl returns for its second year - but which team of furry critters will deflate more balls?" suggests.

Okay, I know what most people would be thinking now, "the only person suggesting women will not be watching the Super Bowl tonight is you matey... Just look at the title to this blog post". The title of this blog post was chosen because that is essentially all they are saying with this article and where they posted it on their website, in short the 'femail' section of that disgusting e-rag. 

The blatant sexism of that 'female focused' section is something I have wrote about before, it trivializes the female, moves them to the outside of the normal readership (males), and undermines any notion that women are interested in anything beyond the family, relationships, fashion and obviously Kittens.

By publishing this article there they are oblivious to the fact that sport is not the preserve of men, and Kittens are not just enjoyed by women. In fact if this article, as poor and pointless as it is, was in the standard part of the Daily Mail's website it would have just been another example of the tabloid trash they publish on a hourly basis. The fluff that is only there to lighten the endless waves of Racism and fear they shove down the throats of their paranoid readership. Just quick, disposable, complete devoid of critical analysis, harmless trash.

In publishing it where they did they have highlighted once again the casual, and sometimes not so casual, sexism that they delight in producing and shown just how out of touch they are with the modern world. The Daily Mail as a source of 'news' are akin to the grumpy, racist, Grandfather we all recognise, unable to see beyond his 1930's upbringing and still believing that men and women cannot share any common interests.

Having played American Football (as we call it over here) at a university that has a female team and seeing how much heart they put into every game, how much work they put in during training, and how much they enjoyed playing the sport, I can categorically confirm that every single female watching the Super Bowl tonight will be enjoying it as much as the male viewers, with scarcely a kitten in sight. Despite what the Daily Mail think about it.

Oit, James Blunt And Chris Bryant! You Are Both Wazzocks.

I feel the need to take a different approach to this much commented upon spat between these two. As you may have read, which is likely if you've found this blog way down in the search engine results on somewhere around page 48,000, Chris Bryant stating that he believed it was considerably easier for those from privileged backgrounds to find 'success in the arts'. Unsurprisingly one of those privileged people hit back, enter (stage left) James Blunt.

In response to Chris Bryant comments about privilege and the arts, James Blunt launched in a rant about his personal experience and how privilege will not necessarily lead to success. Citing his experiences as proof that privilege does not open doors for people in the entertainment industry. In the process calling him a classist gimp and a wazzock.

I couldn't agree more with Mr Blunt, he is a complete wazzock. This is clearly a trait they both share, as within this rant James Blunt reveals how little he understood what was being stated. One look at the wider media will tell you how class works overwhelming in favour of the educated, middle to upper class, white people, to which James Blunt belongs. Everything from ballet to sitcoms are rammed full of cast members over representing the red-brick universities and public schools to which Chris Bryant was referring. To ignore such obvious and overwhelming evidence is to condone the existing situation, thus believing that is the way it should be, and in James Blunt's own language, to be a classist gimp. 

Regardless of his own personal journey, which I admittedly knew very little about prior to reading this story today so I cannot verify the difficulties James Blunt claimed to face in making his name, the fact remains that being from a wealthy background does afford you certain privileges that the lower classes would not be able to rely upon. For instance, the correct assertion that having wealthy family members would help the aspiring performer to afford the schooling fees and years of low income that characterises someones early years within such a competitive industry. They simply have a reliable source of financial support that means they do not have to compromise their time with those pesky distractions such as making some money to eat, drink and sleep somewhere warm. 

Clearly Chris Bryant has said nothing that is not factually accurate in this respect. So why is he a classist gimp and a wazzock, just like James Blunt? 

Had he not used the example he did, discussing celebrities, and instead focused upon the other 'traditional' elitist institutions such as the one he represents then I may be inclined to disagree once more with James Blunt. However, he did not. His comments and focus upon the entertainment industry assumes that the lower classes do not desire meaningful, academic, or any of the traditionally important and well paid roles within society. The comments seem to be playing upon the stereotypical image of the lower classes as dumb, work shy and averse to responsibility and only desiring instant fame and gratification. He is all too happy to discuss inequality in the media but ignores the place in which he earns his livelihood, the houses of parliament, hardly a place famous throughout the UK for being bastion of working class representation. This may be because he, much like his sparring partner Blunt, is a boarding school, publicly educated, child of privilege. 

That seems to me to be the point of the attack and the reason he shares the 'wazzock trait' with Mr Blunt. By highlighting the inherent advantage of the privileged few in terms of making it in the entertainment industry, he has simultaneously brought about a focus upon his own privilege, and the privilege of the vast majority of his peers, within the establishment. Something which I hope doesn't go without notice within the ranks of the 'plebs' he is trying to distract from the more important conversation about representation in the decision making processes in society.

Why I Am Worried About The Lifting Of The Cuban Embargo

I have not moaned on this blog for what seems like an eternity now. It is not that I have not wanted to many, many times. It has just been my complete lack of interest in the world lately, something which happens every year as Christmas approaches, with all its 'festivities' being rammed down our throats in enormous quantities. The television gets switched off, newspapers and their online versions ignored, even interactions with my more consumerist friends is limited in the social media world. It frankly fucks me off more than usual.

Today that changed. Whilst at my workplace it was business as usual for a while, I was happily ignoring the noise produced by the radio DJ's, they were for the most part (I presume) spouting their usual shite. Then, suddenly, there was one story I couldn't help but become interested in. America is lifting its illegal, petty, and thankfully unsuccessful trade embargo with Cuba. 

For a moment I was happy. As you really should be with this kind of news. It surely is a good day for the people of Cuba, no longer shall they be the subjects of unfair, punitive, economic sanctions for daring to seek a path different from the American ideal.

Maybe this is a new America which does not wish to impose its own ideology on every nation in the world, one which doesn't shape its foreign policy exclusively in the terms of its big businesses interests, one that will not attempt to interfere in the running of a populace beyond its own borders.

Then I paused and sighed as I remembered that it was the most powerful of the western capitalist nations and the least likely to live and let live. Much like Britain, France, and pretty much every other imperialist nation from Holland to the new kids on the block in China, America does have a long and continuing track record of manipulating or coercing foreign populations and their 'elites' into situations that further their own agenda.

The extent to which this will happen in Cuba is anyone's guess, but as we know from both current events and history the last remaining superpower does not like having leaders on its doorstep which don't have big businesses, or more specifically American big businesses, best interests at heart.

My main worry is that the free elections which will happen sooner or later, and will be demanded by more than Owen Jones and the other pro-plutocrats, will not be won by a man or woman the people. Rather I see that too being manipulated and warped in favour of a pro-western, free market loving, sycophant. Should it not be the case, could you realistically see any scenario where another election is not forced upon the nation through international political will? I cannot.

I foresee only one outcome for the country, and it is a bleak one. It too will become a budget America. A nation of McDonalds on every corner, of dawn til dusk iPod advertisements, a twenty-four hour Disney channel, huge influxes of aspirational propanganda telling the Cuban people that they too can live the American dream... and within a few generations, a nation of rampant exploitation among the swelling lower classes and a small, burgeoning bourgeois elite, increasingly being marketed both nationally and internationally, as proof that rampant capitalism has the ability to improve everyone's life.

Congratulations Cuba on your impending cultural homogenization. Say hello to the Western Hegemony that will soon be dictating your every action.

Shocking News: Scientist Revealed To Have Poor Fashion Sense And Social Skills

Many people on twitter have fallen into their default 'outrage' setting this week as a genius who worked on the comet landing has revealed himself to be far from that in the wardrobe department. In fact his distasteful dress sense was so appalling that he genuinely thought a shirt as in your face as the one he chose to wear, featuring scantily clad and heavily armed women, was the right choice to make during the highlight of his career thus far. My annoyance with the ridiculousness of this outrage is three-fold.

Firstly, and most importantly, he is a scientist. If you expect anything other than social awkwardness and a twinge of sexual desperation from one, or indeed are experiencing the opposite when you interact with one, then you are not speaking, listening, or reading something from a very good scientist. Okay I appreciate that is a gross over simplification of the facts (with a huge dose of stereotyping to boot) but you cannot argue that there is not a 'geek' culture within the science community, and that culture does unfortunately come with its many misogynistic characteristics. Do not mistake what I am arguing for here, I am not apologizing or making excuses for the shirt. What I am saying is that being outraged over the awful attire choices from a scientist, who quickly changed his shirt once it became apparent to him that it was sexist and inappropriate, is perhaps not the most constructive of things to rally against. He is not the cause of the culture of misogyny, merely a symptom of it, a geek fooled by the culture that surrounds 'geekdom' and the wider society. The comet landing took place on 12th November, the same week that everyone started going bonkers over these photos with the strap-line 'break the internet'. BREAK THE INTERNET! The point of that strap-line really needs no explaining and just highlights my argument. Symptom or cause, individual or bigger picture, I know which one I consider more worthwhile and constructive in confronting. Only made all the more significant by the worrying racial connotations of the champagne butt balancing picture.

My second point is that the guy just helped land a man made object designed to gather data on comets onto a comet! Give the guy a break and just enjoy the scientific achievement for a little while before discussing the appropriateness of his shirt. This was the stuff of movies until the team at ESA achieved it. Beyond that it is a vitally important step towards further understanding comets. What we learn may even save the planet from a devastating impact on day, or help us further understand the origins of life on this planet. In fact there is a lot we do not know about comets, and at a crucial time in the proceedings, surely it would have been better to just let the man get on with his job and kicked up a storm over his inappropriate shirt choice after all of the butt-clenching had died down?

My final grievance with this outrage is the presumption that women will not what to engage with science because of his shirt choice, that it shows how unwelcome women are in the scientific community. Again I would argue that the clothing choice of one man does not hinder the impact women can have upon science any more than it helps it. I would argue that the society in which we live, through the means of socialisation, was the bigger reason for the disparity in the number of female scientists in relation to men. Everyone is familiar with the term 'women's work', that women have specific roles differing greatly from men that are determined by their biology. What many people fail to realise is that gender is socially constructed, because of this so to are the roles that men and women play in society. From schooling to pop-psychology we are told that these fictional gender differences matter, that men are better at certain things physical or intellectual pursuits (like science) because of their biological make-up, women are much more adept at caring, creative, or communicative roles. This is largely nonsense beyond the very real differences, those being that men are on average 30% stronger than women (although there are obviously exceptions), so many men are slightly better equipped than women for very heavy manual labour (although that does not mean they would be any more competent than large numbers of women or that there aren't just as many women who would excel in these roles) and women have the required gear for childbirthing. Everything else to do with gender specific roles, or what society tells us are such, is blatant misinformation. To suggest that this man and his shirt are going to put women off entering the scientific professions is just as equally misleading. It is not his shirt that would do that but the years of socialisation the young female will receive. The socialisation you see all around you from toys, to television or film, to subtle nudges towards an easily identifiable and socially acceptable gender identity from her parents, all conspiring to tell her that she is only suitable for 'gender appropriate' work and to leave the science to the boys. To lambast a man who wore a sexist shirt on a internet stream, however important that stream may be in shaping a child's future, I believe is missing the point and trivialising the actual problem facing those who want to get more women entering into high-status, scientific careers. Foremost among these is a culture that encourages women to turn their backs on science to engage in 'feminine' activities long before a person's (lack of) fashion sense has any bearing on their futures.