If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Because that is the only criteria for you being 'above' me.
And you do stoop to peronal insults, you lable people scum you know nothing about.
Yeah dressin in trackies is comparable to being a child molester. WTF?
Everybody deserves to be judged on there actions, not by what they wear and where they live.
Sorry, but you have written nothing in this thread to make me think you are intelligent.
I came into this thread with well reasoned arguments, I'm calling you a fucking idiot because you are a fucking idiot.
So you admit you stereotype? Not doing much to counteract my opinion of you.
They're not chavs, so if a bunch of people you would otherwise call chavs went to a wedding wearing suits and shouted abuse at you you wouldn't call them chavs? The holes in this chav argument thus become apparent.
Because if everybody should be treated equally, then logically you'd consider yourself to be equal to a criminal such as a serial killer and should be treated in the same way.
The meaning in that case is a comparative one, not a literal one.
My point is, ignoring it to the detriment of yourself is considerably less clever.
What's the difference, exactly? Sometimes it's ok and sometimes it isn't?
I've said time and time again, probably about 3 times that it's not necessarily right to judge someone on their appearance alone.
Nor do I, but it's still a factor. I've said plenty of time and I'm willing to point out where. Infact I cut and pasted it once so I'll just cut and paste it yet again:
"Nice straw man argument.
Did I say it's right to treat everyone that way? No, I said 9 times out of 10 that the generalization is correct in the behaviour sense of the word. I also said in an earlier post that 'chav' has a meaning that goes far beyond a persons class. I did not say that people should be prejudged because they're from a council estate and wear trackies because I've been pretty clear that it wouldn't make them a chav, but in most cases they turn out to be when you've got a real basis for judgment."
I disagree, stereotypes are formed by having a basis in reality.
:yes:
It's their sterotype.
They're creating these sterotypes and then saying the balme rests with them for not doing their best to avoid the sterotype being created.
Why am I a fucking idiot? Your arguments may have been well reasoned but so are mine, I just don't agree with you.
:banghead: Have you read anything I've said?
Of course they'd still be chavs at the wedding. A chav can wear a suit, but he wouldn't wear it properly and he'd probably wear it with trainers or something which would give the game away. They don't understand how to dress themselves properly for any situation.
Well, what other criteria is there available on an internet forum? You're losing your temper and getting abusive. Have I called you names?
I never said that. You made the implication that everyone was equal, as LordGrace says, logically you consider yourself equal to a serial killer if you truly hold that view.
You're an idiot because you've done nothing but stereotype and post mere conjecture in this thread.
Read the bold part I quoted above. Nothing but a crass stereotype.
More stereotyping, not very good at this are you?
I'll happily admit that my views about the word 'chav' are firmly inline with Shyboy, Skive, Yerascrote, Katchika et al.
LordGrace, you seem to be coming from the assumption that just because stereotypes are rife, we should be resigned to the fact that they serve a positive function in our society. Perhaps stereotypes do serve a purpose, but at the same time it worries me when people become matter-of-fact about them. If words like 'chav' and 'emo' were simply referring to style as some people have suggested, then I'm sure I wouldn't take issue with them, but you guys seem to have established that that's far from the case. And that seems to be part of the problem with the word. No-one is really sure how far the definition stretches and while people use it as a harmless reference to a lad wearing trackies with spikey hair, others subscribe to the more sinister and very specific definitions that you've mentioned - the description of characteristics that people shouldn't be afraid to discuss - but can't possibly be discussed usefully with terms like 'chav' that are utterly confused and without any real value whatsoever.
I would never want to ban the word, but I would add it to my list of words that simply restrict our ability to open our minds and see the bigger picture.
I know what you mean, but what I'm saying in a lot of cases when you make that initial judgement based on the way they speak, appear etc. or first impressions if you will, you will categorise them as chav - but they may not do any of the negative associated effects. In that way it's prejudice: pre-judging them to be anti social, likely to be involved in crimes etc.
It's said all generalisations are based in truth, which I think is a fair and valid point, but at the end of the day a generalisation is a generalisation and only serves to, as Helen so eloquently put it; "restrict our ability to open our minds and see the bigger picture".
Of course. I might for example make a judgement about someone based on their race when I first see them. But only an idiot would then actually attempt to justify that judgement as being in any way accurate about an individual. That's where logic and reason rises above initial instinctual judgements about a person. But I see you haven't got to that stage yet.
There may be situations where other people's opinions are important (job interviews for example), but this isn't the case most of the time. Who cares what others think about you when you're shopping, or having a drink in the pub, or relaxing with mates? And as I've said, I work for a company which employs a lot of low-income people who ordinarily wear tracksuits and baseball caps, and occasionally am involved in recruitment, and I can't think of a single instance where the interviewees weren't dressed appropriately for the interview.
But let's address the issue of dress more generally, and particularly status symbols such as gold jewellery and designer labels. People will generally dress similarly to their peers, and this applies at all levels of society. Dressing in sports clothing began in the 80's and became popular in the 90's, long before the chav stereotype existed. Plenty of people have dressed this way long before people started labelling them because of it, so why should they change the way they dress now that a few idiots have been told how to judge them by the media?
As for status symbols then, what makes you think this is a purely working class thing? This occurs at all levels of society. Status symbols work among peers, not among society as a whole. Burberry is the same among certain social groups as Bang & Olufsen is among another social group. Both are pointless extravagances, and both are designed primeraly to show off to or fit in with your peers. Stella or Dom Perignon? Exactly the same. And this is something that occurs at all levels of society in all income brackets. Hell, even obscure tribes in the middle of nowhere have these sorts of things. People may be idiots for this behaviour, but if they are, then we're all idiots, because we all do it. Of course the judgemental among us will happily lap up their own bullshit convinced there's a logical reason for the solar panel on the roof idea they got off some BBC property show, while pointing out the stupidity of owning an amp that's more powerful than the car it's going in, or looking at the really rich, and pointing out how pointless it is to own a car that's too fast to ever try out the top speed anyway.
Let's review what I've actually said instead of taking a single line out of context:
"I did not say that people should be prejudged because they're from a council estate and wear trackies because I've been pretty clear that it wouldn't make them a chav"
"Not caring about about the implications of how you dress, especially when it's a conscious choice to conform to a 'negative stereotype' is an extremely childish and immature attitude. Regardless of whether is 'right' or not to judge people on how they dress, people still do...."
My point, which I've explained many many times is that it is not necessarily right to judge someone on how they dress but that everyone else does and will continue to do so forever. Why then, would someone adopt an image that is detrimental to themselves? "Because I don't care what other people think" is a good enough reason, but that does not do anyone any favours. Therefore, I wonder about those who do not realise this and cannot make myself feel sorry for them when it's in their power to change it; it's not like skin colour, people are not born that way.
I have never claimed once that such predjudice is morally correct or that I engage in it myself.
We can both bring up anecdotal examples all day and it'll get us nowhere, and I've said time and time again, and in my very first post, that the definition of chav I refer to has connotations beyond what someone's wearing.
I live on the outskirts of a town with the worst heroin problem in Europe. Violence, teenage pregnancy, theft etc. is rife. Sprawling council estates, you're guaranteed to see a burnt out car every time you go down the park. Fights in pubs? There's been murders in pubs here; fights are merely a fact of life. I've been in houses with the wallpaper ripped from the walls graffiti in it's place and five people still living there, needles strew randomly around the place. I've had friends beaten up by groups merely for a packet of tobacco. Lost friends to heroin.
But none of this means anything, as I say, it's all just anecdotal. All either of us can do is speak from experience, I've been elsewhere and 9 times out of 10 I've still been right. Are you saying I am lying? The problem is you keep telling me what the definition of the word 'chavvy' is and use examples like 'people you would describe as chavvy' but substituting that with your own meaning. I've said before, wearing trackies and living on a council estate does not make you 'chavvy', these are not and never have be the people I'm referring to when I use the term. You can say somethings 'bollocks' all you like, but I'm not going to deny my own experience.
There are situations outside of job interviews where it matters too and when I say it's detrimental I actually mean when it's detrimental. I'm a shooter, say for example I wanted to ask a farmer if I could shoot pests on his land I would not go round dressed up in a manner that would make him take a dim view of me, whether it's right for him to do so or not. Nor would I do the same if I was asking for a counter signatory for a shotgun certificate. However, if I was in their position I would have doubts about someone who didn't do the same if they were asking me. I would not prejudge someone in other situations and treat them any differently, I may have suspicions about them but there would be no actual judgment until I got to know them.
That's the thing though, it's existed for ages under various names. It's not a new media-invented thing. Like someone posted about the 'chav riot' in the shopping centre in the 80s earlier. The stereotype grew from something that actually existed but the middle classes didn't see until the newspapers pointed it out to them. I'm not saying it's automatically true, but the stereotype would not have existed in the first place without some basis in reality.
I don't do it. But in my post where I mentioned 'status symbols' I wasn't talking about status symbols in general, you've taken me entirely out of context. I'll get to what I was talking about in a second...
Well, status symbols. When I posted about status symbols I was merely using an example to demonstrate pragmatism. Here's what I posted:
"It could be argued that someone who buys and wears alot of gold sovereign rings could be doing so as a display of wealth, a means of setting themselves 'socially higher' than their peers; realisation of an ideal. Instead of buying gold sovereigns maybe it would be better for them to spend their money buying a suit and tie and looking for a decent job, or spending that money to go to college. Maybe someone holds the ideal that they don't care how their judged for how they dress, yet still people judge them because of it and it's detrimental to themselves. Pragmatically, they should put aside that ideal and dress in a manner that gets them respect in order to get a good job and better themselves; that being a greater ideal."
Now, lets say someone is genuinely poor and disadvantaged. Is a lump of gold really the best thing they should be spending their money on? Shouldn't they be trying to make themselves less poor? The difference between the rich and the poor buying their status symbols is that for the most part the rich can afford it, they do so without detriment to themselves. I take a dim view of anyone, rich or poor who wastes money just so they can fit in or one-up their peers, but that's a different issue. The issue I was trying to highlight is entirely different and I was only using a example to do it.
This may be meaningless to you, but as I've said I grew up in a horrendous area; truly 'chavvy' and not in the 'guys in trackies' sense of the word. I did my fair share of dole scounging when I was younger. But there came a point where I realised that whether I liked it or not and whether it was right or not people are going to judge me on how I dress, how I speak and everything else. I made a conscious effort to not conform to the stereotype because it was detrimental. I'll now soon be starting a professional job in a healthcare related field.
People need to realise that they cannot change the world or anyone else, they can only change themselves. Refusing to do so because 'people shouldn't be judgemental pricks' won't get anyone anywhere nor will it stop people being judgemental. The refusal of a person to change themselves to the detriment of themselves is what I judge, not dress, not class.
This is what I mean when I talk about pragmatism.
They don't change the way they dress because it isn't detrimental to them. Indeed like many other social groups, it may in many ways be beneficial socially to fit in. Do you think these people are living on council estates because they dress a particular way? Like I said, other than very particular circumstances, the opinion of people outside of your own social circle isn't particularly important. Give me one good reason why a tracksuit-wearing man who lives on a council estate should care what a middle-class Daily Mail reader thinks of him. Surely the opinion of his family, friends and potential friends is more important? You're right people judge you on appearances. And the fact of the matter is that the person living on a council estate is likely to get most of that judgement from people he bumps into every day. That's other people of a similar background and income, who in all likelihood dress in a similar manner. And so things like dress sense are more likely to be shaped by the people you meet every day, rather than what the national media thinks of you.
Maybe not, but you have claimed that such prejudice is accurate. And if it is accurate, then it is justified.
You ever seen a picture of Bill Gates when he first started Microsoft? He obviously didn't give a shit what people thought of his appearance, and people still dealt with him because he delivered what he promised. He's now one of the richest men on the planet and has possibly done more to "change the world" than anyone in the time he's been alive.
Look at the hip-hop movement in America. Did they change the way they dressed or acted because the rest of society didn't like it? No they didn't, and that has since had a huge influence on both popular culture and wider fashion.
While people do judge others on appearance, they also seem to have a huge amount of respect for people who won't compromise themselves to conform to other people's opinions. And in the end, it is almost always the opinion of wider society, rather than the people, that end up changing. Do you consider any girl who wears a short skirt to be a slut? I assume not. And that's because society's opinion has changed. If they'd followed your advice, then the opinion that wearing a short skirt makes you a slut would still be widespread. Same with tattoos, same with a whole host of other fashion trends. People's attitudes will change before the "chavs" change - fact.
And you still haven't demonstrated how this is detrimental to these people to dress like this. Other than the job interview, and one other obscure example that I suspect that only you and a few other people will ever experience, I can't think of any reason why dressing similarly to people who are anti-social (along with everyone else you know who isn't anti-social) is detrimental to their lives. You seem to base this entire section of your argument around some sort of aspiration to leave your working-class community. Well tbh, there are plenty of working-class people who are perfectly happy to remain working class. And unless you're looking to break out of this section of society, I can't think why you would make it your ambition to seperate yourself from everyone else in it through something as abitrary as tastes in fashion.
9 times out of 10 they are, like I said I can only speak from experience. I also claimed on many occasions that I do not prejudge them until I actually get to know them but you constantly seem to be ignoring me when I say that. 9 times out of 10 is obviously a common exaggeration, but I did not say ALL people all people who fit the stereotype in outside appearances fit the stereotype in actual behaviour.
It's not a predjudice because I do not prejudge people, but I'm not going to be willfully ignorant and ignore a trend so noticable and undeniable that it's reached national recognition.
I could come up with many many examples, but every time I do no doubt you'll say 'but that's very particular circumstances'; the point it it still has a detrimental effect on how a person is treated by those around them. A boss at work may make judgements about them through seeing them out shopping, a doctor may refuse to perscribe certain painkillers thinking they're 'laying it on' to get some opiates. Police may hassle them out of mere suspicion. Say you're on jobseekers allowance and you've been ill and not been able to actively seek a job, your advisor might make a judgement based on your appearance that you're just a scrounger and cut your benefit. To claim that the opinion of those outside your social circle are not important is ridiculously naive.
No, I said that in my experience it's accurate in the majority of cases. Which also means I accept that it is not accurate in some cases and therefore a judgement without a real basis isn't justified.
People delt with Bill Gates because he came from a very wealthy a prominent family and went to Harvard university. Besides, I've seen pictures of Bill Gates from the 70s and he's dressed pretty normally for a middle/upper class person of his age.
It didn't get them anywhere until people started paying them to project that image. Alot of rappers these days play up to a 'gangster' image because that's gets them noticed and makes them money hence it's not a detrimental image.
Apples and oranges.
'looking like a chav' wasn't looked down upon until a significant section of those who did began acting in ways that got the rest associated with anti-social behaviour. Short skirts were 'always' looked down upon mostly for religious reasons, not because there were actually a group of people in short skirts that were sluts.
I've given some more examples in the post prior to this, ones that don't have anything to do with class mobility.
Hmm, just like the dumb blonde stereotype reached national recognition? A stereotype doesn't need anything near the majority of people who dress or look a particular way to act that way. It just needs a large enough minority to get a picture of anti-social yobs dressed like "chavs" in the newspaper every day. And so you only need to find 364 stories a year from the entire working class population of Britain to make up the chav stereotype. The stereotype may have some basis in reality, but it's such a minute basis in reality, that anyone who takes it seriously is an idiot. After all, as my other thread has shown, recent statistics show that crime is now at the lowest level in recorded history, and yet the newspapers need to create a new demon. Do you think that chav-related crime has rocketed in recent years? No, the majority of crime has always been committed by a minority of low-income people. The newspapers have just picked on the way that these criminals tend to dress, which of course is identical to everyone in the society in which they grew up, and have made a character out of it. It is absolutely in no way some sort of trend based in reality that the media have objectively documented, and if you believe it is, then you are the one who is being naive.
You've described a number of occasions where it might be a minor inconvenience. That has absolutely nothing to do with the social success of a person as a whole though. I look young for my age. That has occasionally been a slight inconvenience for me, but it's not a reason why I'm going to fail at something I want to do. And like I said, there are far more benefits to be had from having the social acceptance of people you are surrounded by all the time, than there is having the social acceptance of people you might bump into once or twice in your life at most.
God knows where you live, but I have to say your experience seems to be the one in the minority on this board. But let's get this straight, if "the majority" of people that dress as "chavs" act in the anti-social way you claim, then we would be in the middle of a crime wave, because by my reckoning, these people make up a huge percentage of the population. The statistics simply don't add up, because we have the lowest levels of crime ever recorded. Maybe you live in a crime hotspot, but be absolutely certain that the stereotype has little basis in reality in the rest of the country, and is certainly not accurate in the majority of cases.
Well of course. But the point is that society changed before the people. And I think the marketing simply responded to audiences positive attitudes to the music, which is what originally created the image.
There is absolutely no evidence that a significant portion of the population suddenly started acting that way. Like I said, point out an increase in crime statistics and I might begin to believe you. People have dressed like this for ages, have acted like this for ages, and the newspapers demonstrably manufactured this character in about 2004. It is something that has been quite apparent, and the sad thing is that they've even fooled working-class people such as yourself that there is this underclass consisting of (almost) anyone who dresses a particular way. Incidentally, the mini-skirt is far more linked to a demonstrable change in the behaviour of the population than "chav" dress ever was. Namely the rise in open sexual activity among women, and the widespread availability of contraception in the 60s.
It's not that I'm at pains to make sure everyone reads what I say accurately, it's more that I have to keep correcting what appears to be purposeful and deliberate misinterpretations of what I say. For example, I'm not going to believe that you've never heard of one of the most common idioms in the English language:
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/nine+times+out+of+ten
As I've said plenty of times in this thread, the media did not invent the term 'chav' or the stereotype and it existed for years before the newspapers got hold of it, sometimes with different names in different places.
Well, I think it's common enough that anyone who ignores it is an idiot.
I think selectively choosing statistics from the goverment is pretty naive myself. We can both pick and choose stats to support anything:
http://www.24dash.com/news/Housing/2008-07-15-Link-between-deprivation-and-violence-putting-pressure-on-health-services
Can we drop this myth that the media invented the stereotype and the word 'chav'? Because I'm pretty sure everyone in this thread will be able to tell us their local equivalent before the media got a hold of it. Hell, there's even international equivalents, I suppose the Daily Mail invented those too? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dres
So you're saying to that their immediate social circle will not accept them if they're not 'dressed like a chav' ?
Acting in an anti-social way does not necessarily mean acting in a criminal way. Besides, you may want to back to your 9% percent drop in crime thread and see how the stats can be pretty misleading. Then there's the possibility that minor 'anti-social' type crimes are rarely even reported.
Maybe the real reason that my experience on this board is supposedly in the minority is that the majority of people here are strictly middle class and do not mix with these people on the same level that I do? I
Maybe the real reason that my experience on this board is supposedly in the minority is that the majority of people here are strictly middle class and do not mix with these people on the same level that I do?[/QUOTE]
Oh come off it, I live on a council estate and grew up with people you label "chavs" all my life.
Hate that term, along with the term "chav".
He didn't drop out as such, he took a break but decided to not go back after he started the company. What he looked like wasn't really important when he was the CEO of a company and from a prominent rich family though.
I think this quote sums up what I think more accurately than I could put it:
"Moral reforms and deteriorations are moved by large forces, and they are mostly caused by reactions from the habits of a preceding period. Backwards and forwards swings the great pendulum, and its alternations are not determined by a few distinguished folk clinging to the end of it." - Sir Charles Petrie, The Victorians
The newspapers did not manufacture the character at all, I and many other people were aware of it under different names from the mid to late 90s.
A minority of people cannot change the attitudes of an entire society, society changes as a reaction to preceding periods. The vast cultural changes in the 60s were not brought about by people wearing miniskirts, liberalisation in the 60s was a reaction to alot of things, the cold war, post war economic boom, civil rights movement in the US, popularisation of drugs. Social acceptance of miniskirts was just a symptom of something far greater. Society doesn't necessarily liberalise as time goes on either, as Victorians demonstrated.
Come off it. You also said the majority of people from council estates who wear trackies are 'chavs'. That's not a common idiom. That's you making absurd and unfounded generalisations.
All generalisations fail.
You argument that it's these 'chavs' fault for conforming to the sterotype people like you have created is bollocks. The fault doesn't lie with those that are being pre judged, the faul lies with those makign prejudgements.
Generalisations to the degree you and especially Lord Grace are talking about shows narrowmindedness.
We can all agree that we all make judgements based on appearance, until you get to know somebody that is all you have, but to write whole sections of society off as self harmers or anti social dolies because they dress like emos and chavs is ridiculous.
The media was repsonsible for the widespread use of the word. I've been aware of the word since the 80's - though for a very different meaning.
It's quite obvious where the meaning common to you was born from. Romany gypsies use it frequently in a way a lot of people might use mate, bud, fella, etc etc.
Of course with Roamny gypsies being constantly viewed by many in a negative light, it was adopted by Gadje (non Roma) as a insult implying you were a gypsy and so part of the underclass, much like the word 'gypo' and 'pikey' were and still are used.
It has develpoed since then but it's roots are fairly obvious.
I was talking about my use of '9 times out of 10' as a common idiom, which is why I posted a link directly afterwards to an idiom dictionary. I'm amused that you take a line of mine completely out of context to purposefully misinterpret me when that very line is in a context where I'm complaining about deliberate misinterpretation:
"It's not that I'm at pains to make sure everyone reads what I say accurately, it's more that I have to keep correcting what appears to be purposeful and deliberate misinterpretations of what I say. For example, I'm not going to believe that you've never heard of one of the most common idioms in the English language:
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/nine+times+out+of+ten"
The rest of your post is either based on your misinterpretaion of what I'm saying, or deals with things I've already responded to so I'm not going to bother saying anymore in this post.
That's nice Skive, but you'll do well to realise I'm talking about the character stereotype where you've quoted me and I also said that the character stereotype has existed under various names before the popularisation of the term 'chav'.
I've also told you before about semantic drift and how the root of a word is irrelevant to it's commonly accepted usage, so there's nothing else to say.