Privilege

[John Drake]

Love this.

http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate

[Bedford Roughyed]

Oooh you are going to upset the white middle class males....

[Griff9of13]

One of the sad things is that it illustrates very well how people doing the "lower" jobs are undervalued. Just what's wrong with being a waitress? Someone needs to do it just as much as whatever this Richard guy is doing. In fact, as we don't know what he does she could be a more valuable member of society. 

 

It's one thing that really does ###### me off if I see it; people who think themselve above people who's job it is to serve us in shops, restaurants, pubs etc. 

[Phil]

A bit personal but here goes, I get a wee bit ticked off by the "all you need to do is work hard and you'll make it" line.

The hardest working guy I ever knew was my grandfather. He worked all the hours God sent, hod carrying, laying down the blackstuff not stopping for bad weather cos in the words of the song "no money if you stopped for rain".

We rarely saw him as kids, he was always away working on some construction site or other.

He died at the age of 63, absolutely broken by a life of unrelenting physical graft, and when he went there was just about enough money in his account to bury him.

Maybe he should have worked harder? He obviously hadn't "made it"

[damp squib]

"If wealth was the inevitable result of hard work and enterprise, every woman in Africa would be a millionaire." - George Monbiot

[ckn]

I think that whole cartoon is offensive in a lot of ways. I agree entirely with Griff's post above, some people love their job that others see as "beneath them".  Then you have those who want to get on and refuse to accept that they should know their place.  I've just completed my staff appraisals for last year and reviewed my managers' appraisals of their own staff  and the career intentions section was very enlightening, it ranged from those who saw no limit for themselves through to those who were happy in-role and would hate any more responsibility or challenge as their current lowly grade suits them perfectly in family life or just attitude to life overall.

If you're in a job where you're happy, you're providing enough for you and your family then surely that's the pinnacle of aspiration for many people?  The relentless drive for "aspiration" being "more money" is just wrong.  If you wash dishes for a living but it gives you enough that you can come in at 9 and go home at 5 exactly to spend happy time with your family then that just shows a thoroughly different view on life from those who think you need to be earning 6 figures a year to be happy.  What those who aim for money don't get is that once many people get to 6 figures, they want mid-6 figures, then higher-6 figures and so on, looking for happiness from a big bank balance that just doesn't come.

 

I remember my family and others struggling heavily during the miner's strike and one conversation in house about how they'd never let the (illegitimate offspring) get to them.  The attitude driven from my granddad as the overall patriarch was "never settle if you're unhappy with your life, get up and fix it yourself as no-one in society will do it for you unless you're from old money".  I also remember many of my friends from school being dragged backwards by their parents who refused to see anything for their kids but what they're doing now, telling them that there's no way out so why bother trying.

 

Yes, privilege will give you the head start that is worth plenty but unless you're aiming to work for one of the mega-money investment bank roles where influence and connections will get you in the door then there's not a single job in society where any youngster can't achieve with the right personal drive.  If that personal drive is to be an artist because they love art, a receptionist because they love interacting with lots of people, a manager because they love achieving things through others, a nurse because they love helping others, and so on, then surely that's far more important than having a big bank balance.

 

Some of the least happy people I know are millionaires.  One of the highest suicide demographics as a percentage of people in that demographic in the UK is wealthy men in their 50s in the premium professional careers.  At 50, you start getting to the "too old" category in most of the top 10 professional services companies in all different trades unless you're in the tiny executive niche at the top, your career first stalls then starts to go down as the younger challengers get the juicy assignments.  You realise you've spent 12-16 hours a day, including weekends, trying to be the best for years, taken few holidays, made millions but you've no real friends outside that job, your family don't really know you and you've done nothing of note beyond your job.  That's when the hopelessness kicks in and suicidal ideation starts.

[JohnM]

Agree entirely CKN, though the cartoon to me is not so much offensive, rather it represents two extremes of a spectrum.  To me the positions are " a sense of entitlement" vs " that sort of thing is not for the likes of us".

[damp squib]

ckn I don't see the cartoon as making any judgements on Paula's waitressing job, but rather using the reality of waitressing jobs being paid poorly compared to Richard's job to show how two people of equal intelligence (implied earlier in the cartoon) do not have the same oppertunities. Paula went to college to study something specific so it is unlikely that she planned on becoming a waitress. However her underprivelaged position meant that she had no other choice. Stating that should not imply anything negative towards someone who wants to, and chooses to be a waitress. On the point of waitressing jobs being undervalued - one of the larger points being made in the cartoon is that Richard's attitude will likely lead him to support policies removing worker protection, minimum wage etc. that allow waitresses to support themselves and not have to take second jobs like Paula's parents.

 

 

there's not a single job in society where any youngster can't achieve with the right personal drive.  If that personal drive is to be an artist because they love art, a receptionist because they love interacting with lots of people, a manager because they love achieving things through others, a nurse because they love helping others, and so on, then surely that's far more important than having a big bank balance.

 

It's not about having a big bank balance, it's about having a minimal level of income to survive! That's why so many proffessional artists, musicians and actors are form wealthy backgrounds - aside from connections they can also dedicate themselves fully to their craft during their formative years as they don't have to work to support themselves.

[Griff9of13]

Agree entirely CKN, though the cartoon to me is not so much offensive, rather it represents two extremes of a spectrum.  To me the positions are " a sense of entitlement" vs " that sort of thing is not for the likes of us".

 

Absolutely John. That said we, society, should do all that can be done to help "Paula", should she want it to aspire to something different (note that I say different not better). If she doesn't then we should appreciate what she is doing.

[Martyn Sadler]

The cartoon could have contrasted the fortunes of two boys called Tony and John.

 

Tony came from a privileged background, went to public school and Oxford, and ended up becoming the Prime Minister.

 

John came from a working class background, failed his eleven plus, went into the merchant navy, was useful with his fists, and ended up hitting a glass ceiling (and a heckler) as Deputy Prime Minister, feeling undervalued and unloved.

 

What chance did the poor lad have?

 

What sort of society is it that condemns someone like John to be the Deputy and not the Chief?

[ckn]

ckn I don't see the cartoon as making any judgements on Paula's waitressing job, but rather using the reality of waitressing jobs being paid poorly compared to Richard's job to show how two people of equal intelligence (implied earlier in the cartoon) do not have the same oppertunities. Paula went to college to study something specific so it is unlikely that she planned on becoming a waitress. However her underprivelaged position meant that she had no other choice. Stating that should not imply anything negative towards someone who wants to, and chooses to be a waitress. On the point of waitressing jobs being undervalued - one of the larger points being made in the cartoon is that Richard's attitude will likely lead him to support policies removing worker protection, minimum wage etc. that allow waitresses to support themselves and not have to take second jobs like Paula's parents.

 

 

It's not about having a big bank balance, it's about having a minimal level of income to survive! That's why so many proffessional artists, musicians and actors are form wealthy backgrounds - aside from connections they can also dedicate themselves fully to their craft during their formative years as they don't have to work to support themselves.

It wasn't that that made it offensive for me, it just reminded me of those back in the 80s who said very loudly and repeatedly that we should just accept our place because we can't change it.  I remember one of my mum's friend's husbands laughing at my mum who said that her nephew (my cousin) had applied to Cambridge, "he'll never get in as that's only for "them"".  He laughed again when he got into Cambridge saying "rubbish, he didn't get into the real Cambridge, he'll be there at one of the also-ran places, or if he really did get into Cambridge then it'll be because a toff felt sorry for him".  When he graduated with a first, "you're now just lying, no-one from here gets into Cambridge and if they did then they'd never succeed".

 

Privilege exists, it exists at all levels of society including in the real working-man's physically-oriented trades.  Who here from those environments has never seen the privilege of a union shop steward abusing that power?  A local councillor getting jobs for his mates.  An unqualified man getting a job all squared away.

 

What really annoyed me about that cartoon is that it just reinforces that prejudice and privilege, encouraging people to believe there is their place and they should just either accept it or get angry, it's driving towards the politics of jealousy rather than self-betterment.  There is the third way of just aiming to be what you want and realise that anyone getting in the way is just another obstacle to manage.

 

On the point above about artists, a friend of mine is a full-time artist, making an average of about £1000-1500 a month from his paintings.  He worked damnably hard for 30 years, getting himself to a point of self-sufficiency from a rough working-class upbringing to the point now that he has "retired" at early 50s into the thing he really loved.  Sometimes you just need to recognise that self-fulfillment cannot come without years of planning and preparation.

[damp squib]

While your Mum's friend's husband's attitude was of course wrong, the reality is that it was likely born out of bitter experience. The fact is that many poor people do aim high, do work themselves to the bone to overcome obstacles, and still fail, because there are simply too many obstacles for one human being to overcome. I think there are far more of that type of story than yours, it's just that we don't hear them. 

 

 

On the point above about artists, a friend of mine is a full-time artist, making an average of about £1000-1500 a month from his paintings.  He worked damnably hard for 30 years, getting himself to a point of self-sufficiency from a rough working-class upbringing to the point now that he has "retired" at early 50s into the thing he really loved.  Sometimes you just need to recognise that self-fulfillment cannot come without years of planning and preparation.

 

 

That's fantastic and a credit to him but again I believe he is very much in the minority. I have a friend who is a very talented actress who works full time in a minimum wage job to support herself while performing and auditioning in her spare time. She has a well thought out, long term plan to help her achieve her goal. In spite of this, the chances of her ever succeeding even to the degree where she could support herself from acting alone is slim to none, something she is more aware of than anyone. Is she not entitled to feel angry at the fact that most professional actors come from privileged backgrounds because they don't have to work full time and can focus on their passion? There is also an element of privilege in your story - your friend may have an unusually high ability to tolerate the mental stress of financial instability, perhaps he has fewer dependants - everyone is different and just because some people manage to acheive success through hard work doesn't mean that the vast majority of people can. Promoting these anecdotes as being generally attainable, rather than exceptional, just gives people like Richard the excuse to maintain their privilege. Even if I accept that obstacles can be overcome if you just work hard enough, the mere fact that some people have to work so much harder to obtain the same rewards as someone else is justification for anger at a system which allows those disparities

 

 

What really annoyed me about that cartoon is that it just reinforces that prejudice and privilege, encouraging people to believe there is their place and they should just either accept it or get angry, it's driving towards the politics of jealousy rather than self-betterment.  There is the third way of just aiming to be what you want and realise that anyone getting in the way is just another obstacle to manage.

 

 

I've read the cartoon several times and I can't see where you are taking that message from.

[damp squib]

The cartoon could have contrasted the fortunes of two boys called Tony and John.

 

Tony came from a privileged background, went to public school and Oxford, and ended up becoming the Prime Minister.

 

John came from a working class background, failed his eleven plus, went into the merchant navy, was useful with his fists, and ended up hitting a glass ceiling (and a heckler) as Deputy Prime Minister, feeling undervalued and unloved.

 

What chance did the poor lad have?

 

What sort of society is it that condemns someone like John to be the Deputy and not the Chief?

 

You're absolutely right, John Prescott was deputy prime minister so economic privilege doesn't exist or isn't important. Just like how Obama's election shows that there is no such thing as racism (White privilege) in America.

[JohnM]

Absolutely John. That said we, society, should do all that can be done to help "Paula", should she want it to aspire to something different (note that I say different not better). If she doesn't then we should appreciate what she is doing.

 

I'm sure most people do appreciate it, though.  Some of the problem though is typified in my view by the parental thought that "Our Billy's not the academic type..."   or "University's not for everyone"  

 

Two mates from my youth - council estate kids- both attended secondary modern school and emerged with no qualifications.  One became MP for Dartford, another is now a TV presenter and member of Oxford University  Faculty of History at Wadham College and a Fellow of the Astronomical Society. The common factor is that both their parents "didn't know their place".

[Futtocks]

Edward Heath's family weren't privileged, but he became Prime Minister.

 

So it isn't a universal rule.

[Bedford Roughyed]

The cartoon could have contrasted the fortunes of two boys called Tony and John.

 

Tony came from a privileged background, went to public school and Oxford, and ended up becoming the Prime Minister.

 

John came from a working class background, failed his eleven plus, went into the merchant navy, was useful with his fists, and ended up hitting a glass ceiling (and a heckler) as Deputy Prime Minister, feeling undervalued and unloved.

 

What chance did the poor lad have?

 

What sort of society is it that condemns someone like John to be the Deputy and not the Chief?

 

Yup you are quite right, John proves that it is possible to make it from the bottom.  The number of Oxbridge Prime Ministers is of course just a statistical quirk...

[John Drake]

I think that whole cartoon is offensive in a lot of ways. I agree entirely with Griff's post above, some people love their job that others see as "beneath them".  Then you have those who want to get on and refuse to accept that they should know their place.  I've just completed my staff appraisals for last year and reviewed my managers' appraisals of their own staff  and the career intentions section was very enlightening, it ranged from those who saw no limit for themselves through to those who were happy in-role and would hate any more responsibility or challenge as their current lowly grade suits them perfectly in family life or just attitude to life overall.

If you're in a job where you're happy, you're providing enough for you and your family then surely that's the pinnacle of aspiration for many people?  The relentless drive for "aspiration" being "more money" is just wrong.  If you wash dishes for a living but it gives you enough that you can come in at 9 and go home at 5 exactly to spend happy time with your family then that just shows a thoroughly different view on life from those who think you need to be earning 6 figures a year to be happy.  What those who aim for money don't get is that once many people get to 6 figures, they want mid-6 figures, then higher-6 figures and so on, looking for happiness from a big bank balance that just doesn't come.

 

I remember my family and others struggling heavily during the miner's strike and one conversation in house about how they'd never let the (illegitimate offspring) get to them.  The attitude driven from my granddad as the overall patriarch was "never settle if you're unhappy with your life, get up and fix it yourself as no-one in society will do it for you unless you're from old money".  I also remember many of my friends from school being dragged backwards by their parents who refused to see anything for their kids but what they're doing now, telling them that there's no way out so why bother trying.

 

Yes, privilege will give you the head start that is worth plenty but unless you're aiming to work for one of the mega-money investment bank roles where influence and connections will get you in the door then there's not a single job in society where any youngster can't achieve with the right personal drive.  If that personal drive is to be an artist because they love art, a receptionist because they love interacting with lots of people, a manager because they love achieving things through others, a nurse because they love helping others, and so on, then surely that's far more important than having a big bank balance.

 

Some of the least happy people I know are millionaires.  One of the highest suicide demographics as a percentage of people in that demographic in the UK is wealthy men in their 50s in the premium professional careers.  At 50, you start getting to the "too old" category in most of the top 10 professional services companies in all different trades unless you're in the tiny executive niche at the top, your career first stalls then starts to go down as the younger challengers get the juicy assignments.  You realise you've spent 12-16 hours a day, including weekends, trying to be the best for years, taken few holidays, made millions but you've no real friends outside that job, your family don't really know you and you've done nothing of note beyond your job.  That's when the hopelessness kicks in and suicidal ideation starts.

 

It's an illustration (no pun intended) that the same thing can be viewed quite differently by different people.

 

When I look at that cartoon, I see it simply as pointing a finger at inequality.

 

Inequality exists, it's real, and it blights the lives of millions around the world.

 

Of course there will always be those who prove to be exceptions and overcome whatever obstacles life has put in their way, but their examples are just that, exceptions. It doesn't mean that inequality for the majority has ceased to exist or should not be tackled by those with  the power to do so.

[ckn]

In all my working experience, the physically harder your job the less you get paid. I'm sure there is the odd exception to the rule but that's what I have always found.

And while the argument was that 'I get paid for what I know' (from people in a cushy job) there are too many incompetent numpties in well paid jobs for that to be totally accurate. Some people just have a lot of nerve and front it out despite being rubbish at their job whereas I don't think I could do that.

The Peter Principle is alive and well.  That said, I've found the Dilbert Principle to be more accurate in a few places!

[JohnM]

Don't get me started on middle management!  Remember Back to the Floor ?

[Martyn Sadler]

Inequality exists, it's real, and it blights the lives of millions around the world.

 

Of course there will always be those who prove to be exceptions and overcome whatever obstacles life has put in their way, but their examples are just that, exceptions. It doesn't mean that inequality for the majority has ceased to exist or should not be tackled by those with  the power to do so.

 

Surely it isn't inequality that blights people's lives, but a lack of opportunity allied in some parts of the world to an oppressive political system and environmental degradation - in particular the lack of clean water, which I think is the biggest problem facing many poor parts of the world.

 

Most people who I know have vastly less income than Bill Gates, for example, but their lives aren't blighted by that fact as long as they have the opportunity to achieve something themselves.

 

When you cite inequality, what exactly are you referring to?

 

Is it purely financial inequality? Is it income inequality or capital inequality?

 

Or does it extend to more than merely financial inequality?

 

Or are you talking about equality of opportunity?

 

And that in itself is quite a difficult concept.

 

And given that you'll never have absolute equality, either in income or assets, how much inequality is acceptable before it stops being a problem?

 

How much social engineering are we prepared to do in order to try to ensure that we are all equal?

 

How can we ensure that we don't trap people in poverty when we take measures we think might help them?

 

And would we be happy if we made everyone poorer in order to create equality?

 

To her credit, Natalie Bennett, the leader of the Green Party, was explicit prior to the election about being willing to impoverish us in order to make us equal.

 

But how much sacrifice would you be prepared to make?

 

For example, a relative of a relative of mine is now in his sixties and has never worked a day in his life. He decided early in his life that work wasn't for him.

 

Given the chance, I'm sure he would like to share your income, but I suspect you wouldn't like to share your income with him.

 

Unfortunately we are all born with different talents that give us different earning capacities. Some of us are industrious, while some of us are lazy.

 

And some people are just better than others at making money.

[longboard]

I also don't agree with the school of thought that says if you can manage a biscuit factory then you can manage a printers. I've had numerous 'managers' who know FA about my job telling me how to do something a different way because that's what it says in their books and think one size fits all.

But instead of being grateful for their position they act like arrogant tossers and assume we are idiots.

 

JOC, I don't know what the books are to which you refer, but a simple rule when managing, particularly when managing a function outside one's specific areas of knowledge and experience, is to listen to the people with the professional and technical knowledge.

 

People who don't know that they don't know can do a lot of damage, as they tend not to listen and their actions are based on ignorance and beliefs....

[Stan Doffarf]

JOC, I don't know what the books are to which you refer, but a simple rule when managing, particularly when managing a function outside one's specific areas of knowledge and experience, is to listen to the people with the professional and technical knowledge.

 

People who don't know that they don't know can do a lot of damage, as they tend not to listen and their actions are based on ignorance and beliefs....

 

I think you've just described the current government.

[JohnM]

Dont be silly.

[Griff9of13]

Dont be silly.

 

I don't know, there's a certain amount of truth in

 

"People who don't know that they don't know can do a lot of damage, as they tend not to listen and their actions are based on ignorance and beliefs...."

 

when referring to this or any government. A job that carries a huge amount of responsibility yet requires absolutely no experience, knowledge, qualifications or training to perform. Not bad for a job paying £135k + expenses for a minister.

[tomdooley]

Tony Blair springs to mind. Although he thought he knew better than everyone else.