It seems to me there are a few individuals on here that support this "ism".

Like other ism's, racism etc. I find this quite dissapointing and upsetting.

How does anyone else feel about this?

If I'm honest it doesn't bother me.

Complain about anything in this country and you are branded as an anarchist, right winger, left winger, communist, fascist or nazi, racist or any other descriptive word that can be cooked up to shut you up!

I accept that there is a class system in this country and for the most part I do not have a problem with it.

It just annoys me when sweeping assumptions are made by certain people about certain classes!

Assumptions will always be made because they are generally based on trends. We aren't all the same - we're different in a range of ways, and there are about 6 billion different actual categories of people in the world since every single human is unique. However, grouping together based on age, gender, race, class, etc, helps to get a better perspective of the general trends of people according to their life style. If I said women like shopping, it would of course be a generalisation and there will be women who don't like shopping. Since a large proportion do however, it is a justified generalisation to make, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise on the grounds of appearing PC.

It's only when 'justified generalisations' are used to look down on someone within that generalisation and purely because of that generalisation...

Originally posted by Cortica
It's only when 'justified generalisations' are used to look down on someone within that generalisation and purely because of that generalisation...

What is?

Originally posted by t020
If I said women like shopping, it would of course be a generalisation and there will be women who don't like shopping. Since a large proportion do however, it is a justified generalisation to make, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise on the grounds of appearing PC.

I wouldn't have expected you to worry about attempting to appear PC !

I am working class but I fail to see how your generalising about my class group will help you gain a better insight into my lifestyle!

You seem to have a bad opinion of the working classes and that they are somehow to be looked down on.

I would be interested in how you define working class - is this anyone with a job below a certain wage level, anyone who wears a uniform to work ?

I'll tell you what does do my head in. People who are so 'working class' that they don't aspire to be any better. Why should anyone want to be working class?

But then, maybe I'm just excercising my ism.

Perhaps I am confused as to what working class is ?

I obviously am if I should really be elevating myself to.. whats next.. is it lower middle, or upper working class ? :confused:

It's defimately a lot more complicated that that nowadays. I think it's more to do with a combination of things that affect the places you go, the people you socialise with, the stuff you buy, etc.

The old class divides are well and truly gone - apart from a few people that cling on to the idea because it makes them feel either better than others, or more worthy.

I know some people that think they are a better class and frankly - they prove my theory - they have no class at all :)

Conversley, some people claim to be working class and wear it as a badge of honour in a twisted inverted snobbery.

Thankfully, most peeople don't, and they are all the nicer for it. :thumbsup

It's more about attitude now!

This debate is covered, in part, here:

Sheffield threads resorting to class arguments (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6056&perpage=15&pagenumber=1)

In some ways I think it is not a matter of class as a word. In the animal kingdom there is usually a pecking order and it is just the same in our world whether we like it or not.
People who live in a certain way whether they have a good standard of living or not will always (if they have any drive) try to get a better life. That can mean different things to different people, but it is in our nature to look down on certain standards of behaviour and ways of life and also to look up. That is what keeps the human race going.
We will never alter human nature. All we can do is try to understand and tolerate as many different people as we can and if that sounds snobby that is too bad. It's life.:wave:

i'm openly classist. there are two classes in this world, they are at war with each other (albeit in a not to blatant or violent war in this country at the mo), and i choose to take sides.

i leave you to guess which side :)

Originally posted by dilwise
In some ways I think it is not a matter of class as a word. In the animal kingdom there is usually a pecking order and it is just the same in our world whether we like it or not.
People who live in a certain way whether they have a good standard of living or not will always (if they have any drive) try to get a better life. That can mean different things to different people, but it is in our nature to look down on certain standards of behaviour and ways of life and also to look up. That is what keeps the human race going.
We will never alter human nature. All we can do is try to understand and tolerate as many different people as we can and if that sounds snobby that is too bad. It's life.:wave:

ALso in the animal kingdom the males are dominant and in control, aggression is common place etc. Does this mean that we should also accept and tolerate these actions?

A good standard of living to me is equated by how happy we are. Does someone in the aristocracy feel happier than someone who is "working class". I don't think that you can generalise that.

Classism is another form of opression.

It is a way of determining someones worthiness in terms of intellect, finance etc.

How on earth can you say that someone is more worthy than another based on these facts?

Originally posted by bonny
Also in the animal kingdom the males are dominant and in control, aggression is common place etc. Does this mean that we should also accept and tolerate these actions?


Not always - there are many cases in the animal kingdom where the female is larger, stronger and more dominant. In many cases there is a male with multiple females not because the male dominates the females but because it is the largest and strongest male around and a so has the best breeding genes. Agression is typically only shown to obtain resources - breeding partners and food. Pretty much the same thing happens in humans - though these days it tends to be oil and abstract things like football teams we fight over. In some ways the animal example is a morally better one - they only fight for what they need to survive!


A good standard of living to me is equated by how happy we are. Does someone in the aristocracy feel happier than someone who is "working class". I don't think that you can generalise that.

Classism is another form of opression.

It is a way of determining someones worthiness in terms of intellect, finance etc.

How on earth can you say that someone is more worthy than another based on these facts? [/B]

Classism works every way - a working class individual ("I'm an honest hard working bloke not like those spongnig aristos") can be just as classist as an upper class individual ("I'm a civilised and polite individual not like those terrible oiks in the estates constantly robbing and beating each other up") - its just yet another form of tribalism which hopefully one day we will evolve past - providing we survive that long!

Originally posted by evildrneil
Not always - there are many cases in the animal kingdom where the female is larger, stronger and more dominant. In many cases there is a male with multiple females not because the male dominates the females but because it is the largest and strongest male around and a so has the best breeding genes. Agression is typically only shown to obtain resources - breeding partners and food. Pretty much the same thing happens in humans - though these days it tends to be oil and abstract things like football teams we fight over. In some ways the animal example is a morally better one - they only fight for what they need to survive!



Classism works every way - a working class individual ("I'm an honest hard working bloke not like those spongnig aristos") can be just as classist as an upper class individual ("I'm a civilised and polite individual not like those terrible oiks in the estates constantly robbing and beating each other up") - its just yet another form of tribalism which hopefully one day we will evolve past - providing we survive that long!

I agree with you Evildrneil. If it has been taken that I am merely saying the aristocracy are guilty then that is not the case. I meant classism as a whole on what ever level.

Also, relating to your comments about animal agression for their needs, I think a major point is that as humans in our society we take far more than we give back. We consume far beyond our needs

Although I think that classism exists, no, I dont have to tolerate anything. Yes people look up or down on others who dont behave in what they think is an acceptable manner but I dont accept male aggression over female I think that argument is on a completely different tack to what we are discussing which is classism.

People only change their behaviour or way of life because they see something to strive for. Look at the number of people who just sit about doing nothing because they think they cant change anything. If you have very little but get encouragement to go out in the world and change your situation then most people will try to change their circumstances. Really it is not classism it is just wanting something better for them and their family. When you have achieved something better for yourself it is probably harder to accept that other people cannot do it as well. Maybe that is classism but you will never get rid of it. Civilisation would be too static

Originally posted by Cortica
It's only when 'justified generalisations' are used to look down on someone within that generalisation and purely because of that generalisation...


Its not the generalisation that is used to look down on people,its the individual that chooses to do so.

In the past I have had cause to disagree with T020 on this issue,but I am now in agreement with him.

As he has quite rightly said,we are all individual.

How we choose to address each other is our own choice,if as an individual you feel people look down on you because of who are what you are, this is an individual action.
They may not actually look down own you,but your perception of how these people think leads you to believe that all people of this kind look down on you.
With thought like that,its possible that you will associate with people of the same thinking to gain a degree of support.

This will result in groups of like minded people being formed,then when looked at this group falls into a generalisation and so on.

The same can be said for the lower class looking down on the upper class (it happens) its a two sided thing.
Even if you are raised to look down on a certain class of person,its still an individual choice if you choose to do so.

In terms of income i am not even working class yet I would describe some of my tastes and lifestyle as middle class. So what does that make me?

Of course not all middle class lifestyles cost money. For example not smoking actually saves you money yet these days being most middle class people do not smoke (although this is increasingly true of working class too.)

I don't want to open the smoking debate again but I thought it a relevent point to make.

You're right about their being a number of things that define class, slimsid2000. Income is not a main factor IMO, e.g. a plumber could be self employed and be earning more a year than a doctor, but he wouldn't jump to being middle class. Wealth/income is only part of the picture, along with your profession (i.e professional/ managerial), your level of education, your family background (parents occupation, etc), other background aspects (where you grew up, school you attended, etc) home/car ownership, social/behavioural aspects (accent, manners, social etiquette, etc) and lifestyle aspects (where you shop, eat, holiday, etc). It's because there are so many factors that it makes it harder these days to categorise people into 3 classes, which is why the working and middle classes are usually split up into sub sections of lower, middle and upper working/middle class. There is also the controversially named under class for people who have never worked and claim benefits all their life.

The class system is still very much part of the British society IMO - you only need to look at how often the debate raises its head on here. By giving people something to aspire too it is a good thing - go back 100 years and most people were working class but over the last century many have successfully "graduated" themselves and their families to middle class status. On the negative side it causes tensions (which definitely work both ways). Also, some people (usually men) who are very definitely at least lower middle class are reluctant to accept this as they may socialise with working class people and want to remain "one of the lads". Conversely, some people (i.e. new money - lotto winners, footballers, celebs etc) may behave as though they are upper class with ideas above their station.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
In terms of income i am not even working class yet I would describe some of my tastes and lifestyle as middle class. So what does that make me?

Of course not all middle class lifestyles cost money. For example not smoking actually saves you money yet these days being most middle class people do not smoke (although this is increasingly true of working class too.)

I don't want to open the smoking debate again but I thought it a relevent point to make.

You'd use the socio-economic grouping to figure out where you are, i'm probably in the same boat, being a student (so low income) but with high aspirations and spending habits!

For those interested in a bit of light hearted satire, i'd suggest watching Ben Elton's 'The Thin Blue Line' - episode named 'Ism Ism Ism'