|Class discrimination has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Society. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|WikiProject Sociology||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Discrimination||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
- 1 Two main sections
- 2 revisions and deletions
- 3 classism and racism
- 4 Reverse classism delete
- 5 Horrible Article? No longer so horrible
- 6 Internal Classism
- 7 Opinionated
- 8 Very U.S. centered
- 9 Wholesale deletion of material
- 10 Move discussion in progress
- 11 Name not suited
- 12 Move discussion in progress
- 13 Classism NOT Class discrimination
- 14 Proposed new section on history of classism/class discrimination
- 15 “to benefit the upper classes at the expense of the lower classes”
- 16 "C" rating
Two main sections
I've just added "Institutional versus personal classism" and in so doing, have quintupled the entire article's number of references from 1 to 5 by adding (usually detailed) citations from books, journal articles, web pages of well established organizations, etc. Over time this can be further expanded and improved upon.
The other section, still needs considerable work; I've just added several "citation needed" and one "by whom?" and the language made more encyclopedic. That section, "Accusations of classism" might be worth re-naming. How about "Applicability of the term" or something similar? I'll leave this mostly for others to ponder to further improve the article (please contact me by email if I'm needed as it might be a while before I revisit this talk page).
The article is slowly but surely improving and much better than its apparent state in 2007, thank to all the hard work of everyone from all background in helping make this so. Harel (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
revisions and deletions
I do not understand the revisions and deletions that were made in this article.
Firstly, because they are poorly phrased. The opening sentence is now an ungrammatical jumble and several items are unclear. Secondly, because it deletes substantial amounts of important information--such as the distinction between individual and structural classism, which is necessary material to incorporate in any contemporary discussion of issues of prejudice or oppression. Thirdly because it inserts quite a bit of a material that applies to no use of the word "classism" with which I have ever been familiar. "Classism" is almost universally used by anarchists and communists as a term of criticism, parallel to "racism" or "sexism." As far as I can tell the only use of the notion of anarchism as "open classism" comes from the Openly Classist project in the UK. Fine; if you want to link to them as an alternate perspective on the meaning of the word you can feel free to link to them as an alternative usage but to imply that their peculiar usage of the term is broadly accepted within the anarchist community or by the Left is simply false.
I have, therefore, reverted the edits to the previous version. I'd try to work up some material mentioning the Openly Classist folks but it's late at night and frankly I'm not sure there's much of a point to it in a general discussion of the notion of classism. In the future if you want to re-incorporate some of this material please do so in a way that (1) does not destroy useful material previously composed and (2) does not make inaccurate blanket assertions about how the word "classism" is used. Radgeek 05:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I would argue that it's not only a 'top down' phenomenon. Plenty of people of lower economic classes hold prejudices (sometimes well-founded, sometimes not) against people of higher socioeconomic classes. This doen't seem to be a really active page, so I might just check back in a couple of days and change it if no one objects.
classism and racism
i looked over the article and it's presented as if classism and racism are distinct entities. this isn't always true. sometimes there isn't a clear dividing line between the "two" concepts. the more i research and the more i learn, the more i come to this conclusion. yes, racism can be defined in completely different ways in different contexts, and it isn't always something economic. sometimes it IS. due to technical difficulties, my signature may appear as my ISP number rather than as my user name. Gringo300 20:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I also came to the conclusion that Classism is a broader term for most forms of prejudice. If somone is prejudice towards another, then they belive them to be a lower class then them (or Higher). Which puts it in the catagory of classism. But their are also incidencies (I am a Bad speller, always have been) That it isn't. Classism is a very absract term, it isn't even in the spell-check for MicrosoftWord, see this for yourself! (Masterxak 23:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC))
Reverse classism delete
I agree that part on reverse classism was sloppy and I almost deleted it myself, but I think it should be noted somewhere in this article that classism needn't always be a 'top-down' phenomenon. A black man can have racist attitudes (justified or not) toward white people he's never met- even if that black man truly is systematically discriminated against by white people in general. I think the same is true with classism. There are many people of lower social classes who pre-judge someone they have never met based on their real or perceived wealth/upper class membership/clothing/whatever. And aren't classism and racism (at least on the personal, non-institutionalized level) simply prejudices? i.e. pre-judging someone? Let me know what you think because I'm thinking of adding a line or two or possibly a paragraph.--Hraefen 01:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- I definitely agree - classism can act both ways; just look at the recent Big Brother controversy. I think class conflict has played a significant role in it, with the three bullies reacting to the fact that Shilpa comes from a very well off background and even has servants. And yes, embarassingly enough, that does mean I've been watching Celebrity Big Brother :/ Saluton 00:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've just had a go changing the initial paragraph to include this. Saluton 00:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've made some changes to the prose (although not added anything extra) to make it read neutrally. Class prejudice is by no means a one-way street -- indeed the deleted part "reverse classism" was bizarrely titled. Classism is classism, and there's no inherent direction involved.
- When I was a kid there was intense rivalry between local schools, some kids were bullied for being "posh" or "snobs" because of the school they went to. This attitude exists in adult society ('rich as muck', 'fat cat', etc), and equally the rich criticize the aspiring classes for their "new money", whilst the poor also criticize them. It goes across every conceivable boundry in every direction.
- I'm also surprised no-one has mentioned Marx yet - theory of society itself as being based on class conflict. 188.8.131.52 10:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think structural classism is only against lower classes but individual classism is not that one-way. But structural and individual classism is in the real life not separated. -- schwarze feder 16:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Horrible Article? No longer so horrible
Does anyone else agree this article is terrible? It reads like it written by a sociology 101 student and is full of cliche "Some people argue"/"Many say" weasel words [editor's note: the words "weasel" and "words," when used in conjunction, are themselves weasel words]. The 'classism and racism' section is just stupid (does anyone actually think that 'classism' is anything at all like racism?), and the "Individual versus structural" part is blatently original research. Theres almost nothing in this article worth keeping. GordonRoss 17:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Be bold and edit. I, for one, believe classism is a root cause of many social problems but the many books wriiten about the subject can explain better than I. Benjiboi 05:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- I completely agree. In fact, I came into the talk section to express my belief that this article is garbage even by wikipedia standards. I'm glad someone else thought so too.
Actually I'd argue that with racism and classicism have been essentially one and the same in certain situations, I'm thinking of the Apartheid regime and the Caste system in India.
- As of 2011 the article seems to be in better shape than it used to be in 2007. In addition, I've just quintupled the number of references from 1 to 5 by adding four additional references from books, journals, webpages of established associations, etc, see newly added section on personal versus institutional classism. The section " Accusations of classism" does however I agree, still need to be cleaned up.Harel (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The perspective that takes -isms (classism, racism, or any other) only from the top-down makes sense in that, compared with the bottom of a stratified group, the top needs much less institutional support. I agree that individual -isms happen in both directions, but it's appropriate for institutional definitions to address constituents at the greatest disadvantage in order to attempt balance between groups.
Even so, the distinctions between institutional and personal or public -isms is rarely identified adequately; it's unlikely that personal -isms will disappear without greater understanding from both top and bottom. If a non-White person reacts negatively to a White person because of race, the stereotypes available to that White person are much more easily evoked because of a need to explain the perceived injustice. Inasmuch as personal -isms affect the pace of movement away from institutional -isms, it is essential to recognize personal -isms mutual to both top and bottom.
So, I'd propose an edit to the entry on Classism, in particular to the issue of Internalized Classism. This section points only to blue-collar workers as prey to internalized classism, but, in my mind, even to the most resolved anti-classist, limiting this definition to the "bottom" also limits the culpability of all individuals to recognize and respond to potential vices learned from class experience. Just as the blue-collar worker is unfairly forced to accept and recycle negative stereotypes, so is the white-collar worker. For instance, a person raised in a white-collar family might frequently hear publicly accepted negative stereotypes of the "top," such as those brought about by fraudulent business people and by elitist social circles. To stay in the upper class, this person would internalize and recycle those stereotypes; flouting them would mean a loss of "class status" given that the negative stereotype was learned as a natural and acceptable vice. The concept of internalized classism seems too powerful a vehicle for inspiring self-awareness of class experiences to limit it for purposes of achieving institutional equality.--Tavette (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
This article needs serious revisions. The writer(s) have inserted their opinions without supporting it with facts, and it tends to show a bias towards lower classes. Both of these things can be observed in the following from the article. For example, the middle and upper classes in the US look down on those at the bottom due to negative stereotyping of poor people (i.e. the poor are lazy, stupid, lack work ethic, lack "soft skills", likely to steal, etc). Those with significant unemployment gaps, who live in the "wrong neighborhoods", and those who have bad credit are routinely denied employment due to poverty profiling in the hiring process.
Very U.S. centered
This article is entirely about the United States, except for a brief mention of England--and that as a contrast to the United States. (In addition, arguing that classism is *worse* in the US because it is harder to discern what class someone is seems...counterintuitive.)
Wholesale deletion of material
Any reason for nuking all this material in this edit here? - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Classism&oldid=286625611 How about a decent re-write with sources, I'm inclined to discuss this a bit further with any other editors, before pulling out the hatchet so aggressively. Accordingly, I've reverted this edit. CriticalChris 02:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- In April of 2007 this article as posted was lacking references. Two years seems long enough to look for any refences. I think Jimmi Hugh's edits are appropriate. If you can find reliable sources and references please add back appropriate information. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Heightism (Sociology) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 15:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Name not suited
I'm here to introduce a new problem with the name of this article. Discrimination is prejudicial treatment. This article is not only about discrimination which applies to actions but prejudice which is based on thoughts.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Height discrimination which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 10:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Classism NOT Class discrimination
This article has the wrong term. It's an article about classism and not about class discrimination. An article about rassism isn't the same as an article about race discrimination. An article about sexism isn't the same as an article about sex discrimination. This is an article about classism. -- schwarze feder (talk) 07:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Proposed new section on history of classism/class discrimination
Dear editorial colleagues, I would like to propose new or expanded historical sections to the following Wikipedia pages: Sexism, Racism, Ageism and Classism (Class discrimination), with specific focuses on when was the first recorded case of each and how have these concepts changed over time to contemporary times in different cultures. I am more than happy to work on a first draft (with original sources of course) for your consideration, a have some degree of knowledge in these areas. However, I am unwilling to put the time and effort into such an endeavor if any of my esteemed editorial colleagues here do not consider this to be necessary and/or welcome. 20:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk)
“to benefit the upper classes at the expense of the lower classes”
It's the same debate as the one about whether racism is only about Black people or whether sexism is only about women. That a group is somehow privileged does not exempt the group from being subjected to undue hostility. Lord knows, the world has heard enough nudniks complaining that successful people don't apologize to them for their success or calling for the expropriation of the means of production. EIN (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)