←back to thread

254 points Michelangelo11 | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.841s | source | bottom
Show context
naming_the_user ◴[] No.42056718[source]
What comes across from the article to me is the class barrier more than the gender one - basically it's a posh person finding out what the "real world" looks like.

Shop talk and banter are fairly universal. Any difference is going to be a target. Thin bloke who doesn't look strong enough? Ginger hair? Tall guy, short guy? Weird tattoo, etc. Definitely the one black guy or the one white guy is going to get shit. But is it malicious? Almost certainly not.

The other thing, which in my experience is relatively common worldwide, is that working class communities are more accepting of male-female dynamics. In academia and in highbrow society the tendency is to basically sanitise every social interaction. When you're in an environment where that isn't happening then you can't suddenly ignore it any more.

replies(20): >>42056746 #>>42056800 #>>42056807 #>>42056887 #>>42057157 #>>42057392 #>>42057456 #>>42058227 #>>42059471 #>>42063467 #>>42064057 #>>42064775 #>>42064864 #>>42065506 #>>42066833 #>>42067884 #>>42069349 #>>42070085 #>>42070433 #>>42071751 #
Rendello ◴[] No.42056746[source]
It was interesting for me going from interacting with wealthy, educated developers, to working in a very physical, low-paying blue-collar job. It seemed like living in two different worlds almost.

> working class communities are more accepting of male-female dynamics

I'm curious to what you mean by this

replies(3): >>42056759 #>>42056813 #>>42057076 #
naming_the_user ◴[] No.42056759[source]
I went the other way (grew up working class) and I still, decades later, find middle class folk (in the UK) to be uptight and terribly afraid of causing/receiving offence.

I can't pinpoint exactly "what I mean" but basically traditional values. More willing to accept the fact that men and women are going to find each other attractive, that you probably don't want your wife or husband to have a "platonic" friend of the opposite sex that they meet up with one on one, etc etc.

Whereas the highbrow view is more like - okay but if we accept those things then women can't work on nuclear submarines alongside the blokes. We want women to be able to work on nuclear submarines alongside the blokes, anything else is unacceptable, so we should sanitise all of the interactions and punish everyone for being human and then we might be able to make it work, sort of kind of but not really, everyone will be miserable but we pretend.

replies(5): >>42056765 #>>42056795 #>>42057141 #>>42057198 #>>42065521 #
1. 082349872349872 ◴[] No.42057198[source]
> find middle class folk ... to be uptight and terribly afraid of causing/receiving offence.

I think it's the betwixt and between dynamic: working class folk know they're living on what they have coming; upper class folk know they're living on what they have; but middle class folk, no matter how they live, are only middle class folk if other middle class folk agree they are — hence the insecurity, and at one reason for the conformity.

(in the UK, I think U vs non-U started as a joke, yet was popularised by exactly the people it had been meant to be taking the piss from? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U_and_non-U_English )

replies(2): >>42057224 #>>42067354 #
2. intelVISA ◴[] No.42057224[source]
Well it's not UK specicfic but as there's only really workers and owners, they could be insecure about being a slightly better paid worker?
replies(3): >>42057617 #>>42065354 #>>42067883 #
3. lazide ◴[] No.42057617[source]
Also, an owner - of a very limited amount. Junior partner, at best.
4. immibis ◴[] No.42065354[source]
There are many taxonomies of people. Workers vs owners is one, and relates to the relationship between people and the means of production. Other taxonomies are young vs old, male vs female, and class structures with more than two classes. Notice that this thread has been about social class, more than economic class.
5. vundercind ◴[] No.42067354[source]
One point that Fussell’s Class: A Guide Through the American Status System makes over and over (maybe never quite explicitly, but implicitly, throughout) is that Fussell’s “middle class” is essentially defined by being thoroughly pathetic. They’re the most class-concerned, by far, desperately anxious to signal higher class, while having no clue how to correctly do that. An Upper-Middle spots them a mile away, to say nothing of Upper. To Proles, their preferences and behavior are grating or risible. They end up jockeying awkwardly for position only amongst themselves.
6. DiggyJohnson ◴[] No.42067883[source]
That's one way of looking at it. But there are other ways of slicing and dicing an populace and it's capital.