Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
I think it's worth talking for a moment about "the media", which has come up a lot here. First off, without wishing to downplay the obvious effect it has on public opinion, if you think "the media" is an accurate representation of what everyone thinks about everything, then seriously, come on. If you believed everything the papers said you'd think millions of young people spent 2010 snorting "meow-meow", when no-one who isn't a journalist or reporter has ever called mephedrone that, unless they were taking the piss. And in the previous decade, lifestyle supplements decided young, urban, working-class and lower middle-class men spending money on clothes and taking care of their appearance was a brand new phenomenon, and so "metrosexuals" were invented. (Because no-one had ever done that in the '80s, or the '60s, or the '20s, of course.) Second, what even is "the media"? Are we meant to suppose that the Telegraph, the Mirror, the Sun, Guardian, Express, New Statesman, Daily Star and Morning Star can all be lumped in together on any given issue? Ridiculous.
Anyway, let's look at the proposition that "The Media" - and therefore lots of people - think 'chav' is a synonym for 'poor'. If you know even the first thing about the press in this country, you'll know that even the most reactionary of the right-wing papers, in fact especially those papers, have always distinguished between the 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor. Now 'chavs' are stereotypically unemployed - quite possibly claiming benefits fraudulently, in fact - whereas the great majority of poor people either work for a living, are dependent on someone with a paid job or claim a pension (which is never the benefit anyone is thinking of when they're talking about people who are 'on benefits'). So even in the most bigoted and stupid definition of the word - which, admittedly, some people hold - a 'chav' is synonymous with an unemployed person, but not with the majority of the poor, who work for a living.
And if you look at this from the POV of social class rather than income level and employment status, the proposition that 'chav' just means 'working class' is blown to pieces when you consider that it would be pretty damn weird for the Sun, a paper with an exclusively working-class readership, to slander the very people who buy it every day as 'chavs' - wouldn't it? And this is the paper that spends more ink than any other banging on about "yobs" and "benefits cheats". Or at least vies for that with the Daily Mail, whose readership straddles the working class and the less educated part of the lower middle class. It's certainly not read by many "posh middle class people", who are more likely to read the Guardian.
So no, 'chav' is not synonymous either with 'poor' or with 'working class' in the minds of any significant number of people.
Anyway, let's look at the proposition that "The Media" - and therefore lots of people - think 'chav' is a synonym for 'poor'. If you know even the first thing about the press in this country, you'll know that even the most reactionary of the right-wing papers, in fact especially those papers, have always distinguished between the 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor. Now 'chavs' are stereotypically unemployed - quite possibly claiming benefits fraudulently, in fact - whereas the great majority of poor people either work for a living, are dependent on someone with a paid job or claim a pension (which is never the benefit anyone is thinking of when they're talking about people who are 'on benefits'). So even in the most bigoted and stupid definition of the word - which, admittedly, some people hold - a 'chav' is synonymous with an unemployed person, but not with the majority of the poor, who work for a living.
And if you look at this from the POV of social class rather than income level and employment status, the proposition that 'chav' just means 'working class' is blown to pieces when you consider that it would be pretty damn weird for the Sun, a paper with an exclusively working-class readership, to slander the very people who buy it every day as 'chavs' - wouldn't it? And this is the paper that spends more ink than any other banging on about "yobs" and "benefits cheats". Or at least vies for that with the Daily Mail, whose readership straddles the working class and the less educated part of the lower middle class. It's certainly not read by many "posh middle class people", who are more likely to read the Guardian.
So no, 'chav' is not synonymous either with 'poor' or with 'working class' in the minds of any significant number of people.
Last edited: