Socioeconomic Classes, Or Is It Social -Or- Economic Classes?

I have to clarify a few things.  When I use the phrases "working class," "middle class," and "upper class," I do not mean what most people mean when they use these phrases.

To me, these distinctions have very little to do with money.  I make these demarcations along the basis of psychology.  There is quite a bit of background information that I am trying to convey when I utilize these descriptives.  A world of pathos and ethos are packed into those little innocuous words.

The social class differences are about behavior.  This is about how one conducts oneself in public, how one regards himself or herself, how one perceives others, how one interacts with others.  it is education and attitude that determine these designations, not money.

Perhaps this is a reflection of how I was raised.  My family instilled certain values and priorities in me.  I believe that education and cultural development, and contributing something useful and positive to the world, are far more important than only worrying about money.

Don't get me wrong.  Money is essential and always will be -- to a certain extent.  People have to be able to afford mortgages and bills.  People also have to be able to support their families.  But beyond the basic necessities, possession of extra money on top of that does not automatically qualify one as being "upper class."

I feel that this distinction should be reserved only for the truly worthy.  I truly feel that if people are to be placed in these categories, it should be in terms of education as well as degree of difficulty of their chosen profession.

Here is an example.  I very much regard teachers as being upper class.  Yes, I know teachers are some of the most overworked, underpaid employees around.  Anyone over age twelve that had ever picked up a newspaper is acutely aware of this distressing fact.

However, they are obviously highly educated.  That is the foremost job requirement!

They have devoted their lives to the quest for knowledge.  They are selflessly, tirelessly guiding and coaching the future generations, OUR future generations.  Teachers impart to their students the abilities of literacy, deductive reasoning,

They are ushering a new generation into adulthood by bestowing qualities of critical thinking and analytical abilities.

So perhaps they are not socio-<economic> class, as in "show me the bucks."  But most certainly in social class.  They are educated, they have morals, they uphold their values.  As opposed to actors and singers and pro athletes -- they all belong to the highest economic class in this country.  But that does that automatically mean they conduct themselves with dignity or self-respect.

One little note:  not all teachers are automatically what I regard as upper-class.  This distinction depends on the ability, skill, talent, and dedication of the teacher.  A crappy teacher that misses more than a month's worth of class days throughout the school year, due to "sick days" or whatever else, is pretty low.  A teacher that just mumbles passages out loud from the textbook, or does not go through step-by-step instructions for math courses, or just sits at the desk and read magazines while telling the kids to read the chapter and figure it out themselves, is pretty low.  But again, this depends on the ability, skill talent of the teacher.

Men Are Not Truly Sexualized

Men are not truly sexualized in this society.  Or in most societies.  Now, I know some dumbass anti-church person is going to start squawking, “that's not true, men's sex is celebrated all the time, men are encouraged to have sex and express sex all the time, and the church thinks women's sexuality is evil and tries to oppress it.”

To which I reply, bullshyte.  For god's sake, that's not the whole story.  Ohmigod, you seriously don't even know.  Women are sexualized to a laughable, ludicrous extent all the freakin time.  This has been practically default all throughout human history.  Think back over everything carefully, comb through your memory and consciousness, this time with a little more of an observant eye and really look at what's there.

Men are not sexualized at all in the general sphere.  Female body parts have been used as commodities to sell everything from beer to computers.  We do not see anything of male sexuality being used as a cheap convenient way to sell random trivial crap.

Philosophy and Psychology As Majors

I know earlier I was saying that Psychology and Philosophy majors___  But let us examine this more closely.  What exactly are they qualified to be psychologists of?

Now, I have taken a Psych class.  I wanted to, and it fulfilled a general education requirement anyway.  But it seems a rather frivolous subject around which to base an entire college major.  I have also taken English, History, and Poli Sci.  They are required as part of gen education because they teach us students to expand our horizons, learn to think in different ways, be exposed to [[[___thnk something___]]]

All well and good.  [[[But hse are basically just 'talking,, nnn discussing'' stuff.  It is probably a lot of the same topics rehashed over and over again.  I do not see how this could realistically expand enough to fill an entire four-year college major with all those 120-credit hour requirements.

Psychology major.  Actually, let me rephrase that.  Okay, so perhaps there is enough material to inspire four academic years' worth of stuff.  However.  I do not see what is so complicated that it absolutely must be taught within the college classroom for four years worth of school.  I will explain.  Back in my senior year of high school when I was visiting colleges, I perused a college bookstore.  I happened upon a textbook of psychology, and I read through almost the whole entire edition, and it was fascinating.  But in all honesty it was not particularly difficult to understand.  I understood the majority of the volume on my own, without ever needing to set foot inside a college classroom.

The reason students go to college is that they can learn fundamentals and details of topics that they would not be able to learn on their own.  That is the whole point of going to college, correct?  The purpose of higher education is to train and prepare young individuals for complex jobs out in the job market.  There are skill sets that would be rather difficult for students to learn on their own.  This is true for most of the mathematics and science subjects.

But I have a hard time believing that a person could not simply learn psychology and philosophy on their own.  One can just read a textbook and acquire a working comprehension of all the material therein.  It is all written in plain language.  There are no mysterious, cryptic symbols or messages with hidden meaning.  There are no mathematical formulas to commit to memory.  There are no complex connections that bridge two distinct topics together or anything like that.

There is no reason that a person would not be able to simply devour a textbook of psychology and engorge, ingest it.  It is fun and interesting and fascinating to have one or two isolated college courses in psychology or history.  But it seems a bit superfluous to have a whole entire college major springboarding from this.

Philosophy major. [[[mebbe puttt my opin on what plhil entails???  Dunno, was too emotinat ar the time...]]]  At some point I was turned off of philosophy class because this one obviously was nothing more than fluff.  "Violence, abuse, murder of any kind are wrong."  There.  That is all the philosophy you need.  [[liken this to the 'distur trrend' essay.]]]  I have come to realized this as over the past few years I have become disillusioned to what really happens in the world.

History major.  This one arguably can be considered one of the very few libarts subjects that deals in actual facts.  This one has enough source material that it can be realistically pulped out enough to fill an entire college major.

Okay, so you learned history.  Then what?  What is one going to do with that Bachelor degree in history?  Do history?  I see in interviews or something that a lot of people say they like learning history because it helps them understand why people act the way they do.

Uh, I take issue with this hypothesis.  People don't always act the way they do because of history.  Sure, personal history greatly affects a person's perceptions and outlook on life, which definitely influences their behavior.  But that doesn't make it into the history books.

Well, at least those majors have some prior repertoire in the intelligentsia.

But then there are a bunch of useless majors that seem designed specifically to get people to work in corporate business nonsense.  Advertising.  Public relations.  What the hell is marketing management?  I've heard that specific major somewhere, I think.  It sounds like a bunch of garbledygook.  I took a Management class once.  The professor was really good because he explained concepts using real-life examples of personnel issues.  But the textbook, the syllabus, and the tests were gibberish fluff.  It was comprised of a whole lot of buzzwords and boardroom meetings jargon.

As we know, higher level courses delve deeper and deeper into the nitty gritty of a subject.  That might be a problem when there is no substance upon which to expound.  To be fair, one or two courses in management might prove useful.  But beyond that is wasting time and money.  From what I gather, a manager is only truly necessary if the employees are incompetent idiots that need to be constantly baby-sat.  A manager might be needed to breathe down employees' necks.  But if the employees are good, they should be able to work under minimal supervision, and minimal management.  Like I said, it is mostly rubbish.

Growing Up In A Household That Values Education, Id est, An Asian Household

Why education has always felt natural to me.  and this,, is another reason that I realize I have been extraordinarily fortunate in my education,,, encouraging education.  my own family,, my own parents of course__.  and also, we have always surrounded ourselves in the community that greatly values education.  Oxford University was mentioned in everyday conversation.
--places great emphasis on education.
My parents instilled in me a wonderful sense of wanting to achieve.

-- the lofty lorry eloquent esay about, fostered a sense of discipline in me, 'instilled' 'fostered' a desire to want to learn___ ..encouraged a sense of___ inquisitive))))))

,,,fostered my education growing up.  -- actively encouraged,,,, and completely supported it.  They were very strict about my school performance.
*** perh anoth ess, elaborate on the fact that I feel most at home in sch surroundings,,,  Mayhaps *this* is where to put that I lurve 1800s decor, old acclaimed 1800s universities, all the old thick books with the incredibly intricate and surprisingly accurate medical diagrams
-- elab on the well-established thriving Bengali comunt in rhode island,, shoott wahyt wht

This is universal everywhere.  Rhode island, massch, north carolina, south caro, missspp, Maryland, Michigan.  Wherever we meet Bangladeshi Asian-origin families, this is a universal uniting theme.  They all expect their kids to excel in school and extracurricular activities.

Even when my family moved here to North Carolina, we were comfortably ensconced in the middle of Piedmont Crescent.  This is the educationally-affluent, flourishing reaseasrch centerss.

***mebbe put wonderful lofty 180s essayhere... ,,rather than spg2001
ever since high schoolk, I 've always loved the 1800s style of decor.
[[[ inlcud excerpts frommy ideal deram house.  eg. the turn of the dcetnry, boston coffe shop-deli.
(( all the little trinkets and curios.))

**perh put htis as tie-in to or lead-in-to why, another reason, why academic excellence has always felt very comfortable tp me?  I have always felt comforatsble.    *for summer 2000?  or no, perhasp ssuumer or fall 2001 !!,,,,... , bc I grew up in New England university town amongths graduate students.  My parents habituated the [[frequented]]]] the social circles of the international married graduate students.
--therefore it is steeped in the olden culture of higher education always.

Orrr mebbe this next parg, put this in "'augg 80-s didn’t have sould?""  KEEPPppp
--dunnoo, perh incl,,, even with our meager resources, my parents always ensured that they value education.  made it a top priority to travel, to be cultured.  for eg.g, campus cultural events along with the Bengali-American comnity.  allso, visited historical sites, boston, philadelphi liberty bell.  The Smithsonian in Washington, D.C. -- Museum of Natural History.  Lincoln Memorial.  Washington monument.  Those historical attractions are all free to visiting tourists.  we made car tripsd bc we could not afford plane tickets everywhere.  The ppoint is, they made it work.  They did not let lack of funding hinder them from providing me with quality upbringing.
[[[[-- cape cod, block island, nantucket.  hmmmm donit know.]]]

** grwoing up in a New England college town.  I think, hmmm, this phrase "college town" has rather negative connotations in pop culture.  They think it is about drinking, partying, frat parties, sprn brk,__ spoiled middle class white kids having their parents pay for everything for them.
-- That might all be true, but it had nothing to do with my childhood.  not even remotely resembling my experiences growing up in a New England college town.  -- grew up amongst the Asian international___

The Bangla/Indian family dynamic is more like the traditional Chinese family relationship.

about the decor??? hmm thinkign thingking...... warm happy memories from my childhood.  bcc yhe decorr reminds me of growing up in Rhode Island., a hop skip and a jump away from Boston [[and cape cod et al.]]]

I still feel that the new year starts in September rather than in January.  I read an editorial article somewhere, and I realized that I agreed wholeheartedly.

This is possibly another reason I find it badly surprising that a lot of girls feel they are discouraged from reading and being good students.  Growing up, ALllll books and school stuff were very encouraging of girls to be good students.  Teachers were all women.  Even our school supplies were all centered around girls.  Lisa Frank brand of notebooks and three-ring binders, which were totally awesome.  Trapper Keepers.  All the main characters in books were all girls.

Speaking of the 1980s.  -more stuff abt how my parents did not sit around and wait for the school to teach me drawing and stuff.
my parents always, always, always supported my artistic expression as well as my [[__written word.]]}
--tie-in to the 80s:  strawberry shortcake and school projects and arts.  The 1980s had the absolute coolest arts and crafts activities for children.

Fashion Is Art

Back in the 1990s when I was a teenager, “fashion” people were routinely chided for being shallow and superficial.  The popular psychology was that fashion, or indeed, that caring about one's appearance at all, was phony, superficial, etc.  "It's what's on the inside that counts."  Nothing on the surface is important.  The reigning genre of dress was either grunge, or long flowing skirts with combat boots.  Yep, I was guilty from time to time.  (At one point they had a punk/skater uniform which was possibly worse.)

Upon closer inspection, I think they might have mixed up their terminology a bit there.  (((Fash mag vv wmn mag)))

Look, I am ever grateful to the 1990s for encouraging all of us to look deep inside ourselves and find the genuine, caring, warm-hearted human being inside.  To reach deep within ourselves, and cultivate the talent and intelligence and other important philosophical directives.  Also to their credit, they did at least tell us never to walk around naked, even as they advocated sloppiness.