Tony Erikson Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Because the behaviour you see at the time is chavy. I think you're trying way too hard to somehow prove that chav is a label only applied (variously) to the poor, those in poverty, the working class, or people with a working class background. And we've variously disproven each of those categorisations. Everyone else agrees that it's a label that defines a certain subset of anti social behaviour, and that generally it's a pattern of behaving like that that attracts the label. Therefore why not label Gilmour a chav? It was the incident people saw at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Erikson Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 You've never heard the phrase "hooray henry"? Really? I honestly find that difficult to believe.. Really. Though now I've had a look it enforces my point. You don't hear poor people being called Hooray Henry do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppins Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 I'd never heard of Chav before I joined the forum, but theres always been snobbery between the middle class in Sheffield, don't know about other parts of England, never worked elsewhere , I do remember the girls telling me that they would never want people to know they worked in a factory, by thinking that way they must have been snobs too, even people that live on some Estates where we grew up are looked down upon now, maybe things have changed for the worst now, but believe me middle class snobbery has been around a long time in Sheffield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Really. Though now I've had a look it enforces my point. You don't hear poor people being called Hooray Henry do you? Yes you do...I think they may be called "rahs" these days as well... you need to get out more and widen your horizons... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Erikson Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Yes you do...I think they may be called "rahs" these days as well... you need to get out more and widen your horizons... Or be happy with the fact that I don't label people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Therefore why not label Gilmour a chav? It was the incident people saw at the time. Because his wider behaviour is now open to scrutiny through the media and it appears to be a one of case of behaving like that. It's really not complicated... What's your issue with it now, we've proven that it's not related to wealth, income or poverty, now you're worried about whether it's applied after one observed incident or not? It is a pejorative term, it describes an attitude and type of behaviour and it applies equally to the poor and rich should they behave in that way. There's really nothing to argue about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Erikson Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Because his wider behaviour is now open to scrutiny through the media and it appears to be a one of case of behaving like that. It's really not complicated... What's your issue with it now, we've proven that it's not related to wealth, income or poverty, now you're worried about whether it's applied after one observed incident or not? It is a pejorative term, it describes an attitude and type of behaviour and it applies equally to the poor and rich should they behave in that way. There's really nothing to argue about. Just to prove my point. Read the OP here. http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=794554 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Really. Though now I've had a look it enforces my point. Which point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Erikson Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Because his wider behaviour is now open to scrutiny through the media and it appears to be a one of case of behaving like that. It's really not complicated... What's your issue with it now, we've proven that it's not related to wealth, income or poverty, now you're worried about whether it's applied after one observed incident or not? It is a pejorative term, it describes an attitude and type of behaviour and it applies equally to the poor and rich should they behave in that way. There's really nothing to argue about. Then why the term Hooray Henry for one and Chav for the other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Or be happy with the fact that I don't label people. Whether or not you use the term there's no harm in knowing that perojative (sp) labels aren't just a one way street... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.