The young in any society are the critical generations, the strength and wisdom of whom will secure or diminish the future for that society. Today there is understandably a focus on GEN Z, or Zoomers, born say between 1997 and 2012, with considerable concern for their well-being and prospects. A similar focus is needed on GEN A, who were born after 2012. In addition, in the UK a recent report by the Centre of Social Justice entitled “Lost Boys” highlights the toxic approach to boys which somehow sees the young male in UK society slipping backwards in both status and achievement. And to some degree there is a frustration in certain quarters that GEN Z need to wake up and learn to work harder, whether or not that is a fair judgement.
Generalisations are always dangerous and today’s tendency to categorise with a one size fits all exaggeration often misleads: it must be remembered that within GEN Z there are millions of young people who are advancing in life well and determined to succeed in various ways. However, where young people are struggling it is necessary to seek solutions to help them become good contributors to society and to ensure the future.
Government has a role to play in providing good data and providing a framework for example in safeguarding where that is needed, regulating material on social media and access to it, while respecting democratic freedoms. Schools can help with balanced education. But, if it is fair to say that people must take responsibility for selves whatever the luck of the draw, do not the solutions lie with better parenting by parents, and the young learning to understand themselves and learning to look outward, focussed on others not themselves?
GEN Z
GEN Z went through Covid, the remedies to deal with which really damaged children and young adults for the future more than anyone else. Still however, even the Covid Inquiry and the recent Covid Remembrance Day focus more on the dead and mourning them: yet the vast majority of deaths, while sad, were of the very old and infirm who had lived their lives and whose time left was short anyway. Do we not perhaps have to cease harking back to Covid, recognising that dangerous bugs are a fact of the risky lives we lead, and we simply need to learn how best to mitigate the bad consequences? So, perhaps it would help to simply accept the pandemic created real disadvantage for some young people and focus now on how to support those so affected.
In the recent survey of GEN Z by the Times newspaper, the negative results focus on the prevalence of anxiety among Zoomers. There are nearly 1,000,000 Zoomers (16-24) not in education, employment or training (NETT). Apparently, this number increased by about 110,000 in the last 12 months. It appears that they are either unwilling or incapable of finding or committing to learning or work. Instead of dismissing them as lazy or stupid, it is surely essential that more of the right support is offered to them: that is support which engenders a motivation to contribute to society and help themselves. A recent report also suggests 4 in 10 of Gen Z are considering giving up work for life on benefits. It is for Government to financially disincentivise that attitude and to create a framework of opportunity for them and for businesses, colleges and communities to give skills training. But training has to match the potential abilities of the individual, and for some that will mean relatively basic skills. Perhaps some jobs appropriate for those skills, which are labour not intellect oriented are not given enough respect and so promotion.
Apparently, lack of skills is a big barrier, and then lack of confidence. Of course, this group of Zoomers can change if they learn that self-help is the route to change. Here, parents have a major responsibility and need to engender an optimism and self-belief in their children. That is aimed at enabling them to stop looking inwards, reject self-pity and point their gaze outward towards other people and situations. Some may suggest that their parents in many cases are incapable of doing that: if so, does that point to a lesson for the future of the need for society formally to provide education where appropriate for parents of young children and potential parents to become so capable?
LOST BOYS
The CSJ Report on Lost Boys informs us how society has perhaps lost its cultural way when it comes to nurture, perhaps for the sake of diversity, equity and inclusion. Naturally, the emphasis on levelling up females with males in society has been a modern and continuing crusade. But has the male been demonized on the way? NEET boys, aged 16-24, have risen by 40% since the pandemic compared to 7% for girls. Pay for girls in this group now averages more than for boys. The report talks of an epidemic of family breakdown; 40% of people think that “society does not value traditional male values” such as courage, resilience and competitiveness; half of 18–24-year-old males think the media shows men to be a “bit pathetic”; and meaningful jobs for non-university educated males are increasingly unavailable. And apparently according to polling 41% of sixth form boys and girls have been taught in schools that boys present a problem – where does that come from in teacher training? In education GEN Z males are faring at least a grade worse than females in key subjects. 2.5 million children have absent fathers, and boys are the worst affected.
Boys’ sex education is now heavily influenced by pornography online. The average age at which children first experience porn is 13 and can be as young as 9 for many. The CSJ report suggests that 25% of young men aged 18 to 29 were likely to watch porn every day or most days . In a Times article by Alice Thomson interviewing Baroness Bertin the headline quote is “Young women now think choking is normal- and young men expect it.” She bewails the legal pornography which degrades and humiliates women, and that “young men think young women like violence because that is what they have seen”. In relationship terms GEN Z are seen as the loneliest generation, especially boys. These days apparently half of child sex abuse is child on child. That the declared misogynist Andrew Tate and his brother, wanted for criminal trafficking and rape among other things, have a voluminous social media male following inhaling a culture of abuse tells us a lot about how freedoms are being abused and corruption spreading as a result. That President Trump’s executive reportedly bothered to procure the release of the Tate brothers to the USA from Romania speaks now of a leadership embracing a misogynistic” manosphere” which increases the challenge facing people with traditional caring values.
It is of course primarily the job of parents to teach children about relationships and most parents probably do a reasonable job. But many clearly do not and social media is allowed to take over. Absent a father as a role model to give perspective, boys are evidently suffering and rely on macho manosphere social media material. Add to that the lack of consistency in regulating pornography: while the British Board of Film Classification decides what people can see if the porn is in a physical form, such as cinematic or DVD, there is no such regulation of internet porn or the social media platforms which are the vehicles for distribution . That is bizarre and easy to fix and one has to wonder why this is not being fixed. Is this Government oversight ? Or is this another example of governmental authorities’ frailty or unwillingness to interfere with the likes of Tik Tok or the big U.S. tech platforms and regulate their freedom to corrupt?
Exposure to porn is damaging boys, and therefore an attitude to girls, and therefore society. The CSJ report and Baroness Bertin’s report and recommendations on pornography require serious attention. Parents need to understand and grasp the issues and nullify these influences on their children.
Meanwhile social media continues to corrupt young minds and the recent Times independent commission records the views of senior police officers that social media should by law be unavailable to the under 16’s; and that commission rather agrees.
YOUNG MINDS: ADULTS TO CHANGE FIRST
When it comes to the young and their parents, it is essential to remember that the silent majority of Gen Z and their families are doing a good job of keeping society afloat; but like the middle-class taxpayer they cannot be pressed to subsidise a growing class who shy away from a normal contribution. Young minds which are fretting with anxieties and fears which are normally dealt with by applying healthy resilience are a growth sector of the population. Children must be better prepared to make their way in the world, and recognising the duty to contribute is part of that. An article by the Headteacher of Rugby School, Gareth Parker-Jones, reports on heads of businesses bemoaning Gen Z work habits as lacking robustness. A reported outburst by Jamie Dimon, head of J P Morgan, decries the work shyness of Gen Z, a gross generalisation, but one which illustrates a point. Mr. Parker-Jones blames the “mollycoddling” of children with safetyism against normal life-risks as weakening resilience, while letting the risks of the internet rip through the lives of young minds.
We can add to that a growing and substantial belief among parents of small children reportedly that it is not their job to toilet train toddlers, or send them to school with basic social skills, or even their job to help them learn to read, all of which points to an abrogation of normal parental responsibility. If helping reading is off the agenda, presumably helping offspring learn lots of other basics is too for this parental cohort, many of whom are in poverty circumstances. British schoolchildren apparently miss an extra 4.7 million days of school a year after the pandemic, which seriously damages their life chances. Primary school teachers increasingly bemoan that they did not become teachers to do child rearing as a parental substitute. Is it that basic parenting courses on responsibilities and duties and parental tasks are needed in addition to typical ante-natal classes?
Government talks of mentors and coaches for the young. A great idea maybe but how practical is that: good professional mentors and coaches in numbers would cost a small fortune at a time when spare State funds are needed elsewhere. Would it be realistic to enlist retired people who have had successful careers at much reduced expense to buddy the young who need it? Or should employers of bigger work forces be incentivised to provide appropriate employees for these tasks for a few hours a week? Local communities could also set up systems for provision. .
As we await reforms to the welfare system promised by Government which it is hoped will take large swathes of young minds out of benefits dependency, it must be recognised the State cannot provide individual support mentally except for the most extreme cases. The answer surely lies principally with parents and friends of troubled and workless young people, and a culture which engenders confidence, less fear, more risk tolerance and so brighter horizons. That is the work for all influencers, media and media platforms, as well as employers and educationalists. That is the opportunity which Government can lead if it chooses.
See also : – Is the Nuclear Family Core to Prosperity? – Addressing Elephants – A Key to Change
