Social Sterotypes

Look at any "B-grade" American movie and within you will find a handful of stereotypes particularly at the high school level. You have the 'jocks', the 'nerds', the 'losers', the 'gay vampires' and 'cheerleaders' among many more stereotypes. However, the question must be raised whether such stereotypes exist anywhere else but on the silver screen as well as its important in interpreting social conventions that have existed since well the creation of any form of order, society, law or otherwise.

There is of course the system of which the entire social hierarchy since the dawn of individual thought (or there lack of due to systematic oppression) has been based upon. Generally three main groups can be isolated: the upper class (capitalist class or ruling class or patricians), the middle class (mercantile class or bourgeoisie or plebeians) and the lower class (working class or slavery class). Of course, then how does this relate to the stereotypes that now exist within society. Well of course, as a member of society it makes relative sense to ask oneself the questions such as: would one trust a rich businessman or lawyer with a secret, or a hard working blue-collar worker? Would one expect a rich man to wear Target? Would one expect a cleaner to be smarter than an investment banker? Just from these simple questions and consequently their answers, stereotypes have already been recreated within one's mind. Indeed a member of a upper class is generally idealised as a smart, sophisticated, greedy, sometimes untrustworthy person. A lower class is therefore then portrayed as a slow witted, simple, charitable and trustworthy man. Nevertheless, it may then be stated that perhaps rather than class determining one's traits and character, it may be the other way around. A smarter, more educated man may have become upper class through application of such knowledge, much like the worker who did not have such a privileged upbringing. Therein lies the main point: that socioeconomic, demographics, character and chance all are directly correlated with one's class.

With such thought then comes the idea that, why is it that certain movies (and other forms of media) portray stereotypes. The truth is that stereotypes do exist and indeed most, if not everyone does correspond to a stereotype because in reality, a stereotype is simply a microcosm of society itself. The classic high school example: the 'jocks', 'cheerleaders' would be agreed upon to be the upper class, the everyday 'mr average', 'musos' represent the middle class, and the 'nerds', 'dorks', 'geeks' and 'losers' top the lower classes. Yet then, ironically it is the 'nerds' who eventually because of academic brilliance and intelligence, become the upper class in later life. This brings the question of the reasons behind 'jocks' being the upper class of high school hierarchy. The idea of popularity is therefore echoed and presented as the only definitive way of people to measure ones class within the high school hierarchy. Yet this is much to the distaste of many middle class students for, representative of society itself, and prescribed in many social analysis texts, the middle class are always fighting with the upper class within history to obtain their new position as such. Indeed, time and time again, civil wars, coups, revolutions have been products of ideals held by the middle class with the enlisted help of the lower class.

Much like society's classes, the discriminant is that only one factor is taken into account for measuring one's position within a system. Once before, it may have been military power, political power (a more potent form of popularity), or otherwise but now in the capitalist world, it is unfortunately the measure of monetary value, or rather money. However, once such capitalist world might be eradicated as normally done by the middle class with the help of the lower class, perhaps yet again a new world may take shape, and yet again a new factor will determine one's position in the hierarchy. Thus continues the loop that has shaped civilisations, empires and countries as well as spawn countless "B-grade" American movies that are nothing more than a bit of fun.

Politics Part Two

Sound the fanfare, man the ramparts, men to fortifications it's a brand new siege of the Labor Party against their rivals the Liberals (joking liberal though). Its that time of year where Australians get a little bit dumber and everyone gets a little more senile. Left,right, centre, centreleft, centreright, factions Unity and Socialist Left, conservative Liberal, progressive Liberal whats with the jargon?

Stupid people are more important than you think, sometimes a number does mean more than the person. Well if the smartest 10% of the population vote on policy, the other 90% vote on buzzwords, flashy, nice, comforting, easy to understand. You don't have to think alot, you just have to know the Governments on it and when it appears they're not feel free to cause a rabble. That's what happened to Rudd at least, public office was never an easy to place to set up shop. Gillard on Abbott on deathmatch that would be more fun and a better decider, let them loose in a cage, the victor can sit on office until they are stabbed in the back. Ah democracy good old reliable shitty democracy. Return to surplus 2011-2013 now that sounds all good and well, considering the deficit is tiny, wheres my National Broadband, what happened this education revolution, if it actually occurred I should be a revolutionary, it's going on my resume Ruddy boy. That is what people voted for, they got 50% which is pretty success seeing as they could've gotten 0% which would've ordinary. Liars and thieves at work, which is why I'm going to address the fact of the constituency rather than the government in this post.

People should be smarter, people should be more aware, more critical and generally less gullible. Trouble is that they're not, what to do? Well one can argue education but no one likes learning voluntarily so instantly there is an entire element gone. One could also argue that the majority gets what the majority wants, but what about the minority? The rich, liberal and of course ecofriendly upper middle class who couldn't care less about the struggles of the working man, are they any better than the ignorant everyman. Yes and no, rich people can see a bigger picture, it's in the nature of the rich to continue to prosper and the environment is one element that causes big headaches. Carbon emissions tax, mining super profits tax, and of course higher minimum wage, the crux of many rich is the government. The vote to small government i.e. Liberal would be a sound choice, no? Not the case, everybody would like to think they are not causing as much damage as they are so in the nature of good conscience they vote for the Greens, knowing full well that the Greens will never take office and therefore never impose any radical regulation. However they do get a kick out thinking that by voting for the Greens they get some sort of environmental karma points that allows them to drive their nice SUVs and have garden sprinklers on all day.

What do the poor have to say about Government? More benefits, less tax and of course free stuff, the poor or at least well to do, enjoy a range of government benefits. Of course this comes with a price tag, social benefits are numerous in a such a wealthy country as Australia, but it's not a vein of gold Australia sits on, but a time bomb. The commodities industry is living on borrowed time, China's eventual slowdown of its rapid growth will mean shortfalls in demand and also in exports, the dollar will drop as a result and generally they'll be greater inflation and a badways to tackle it. I speak on the dangers of the growing services sector, it's largely unproductive and uncompetitive against other countries. Australian firms are mainly internal, exports are commodities and only a small amount of the exports is really derived from services. You have a recipe of a stagnant and self propagating economy based on the government printing money so the people can spend it on stupid things. Are the poor really to blame, the lack of education despite being such a wealthy country is troubling. There is a lack of doctors on the part of the AMA and partially because the wellspring of talent has been for lack of better word, imported. So how long do we have doc?

I, of course would like to propose the tax go through as 40% on ALL mining including oil and shale. Cuts to public sector, cuts to public benefits, cuts to tax, and an increase of regulation on heavy polluters. It'll never be done of course, at least in the politicians lifetime. The classic conundrum remains that the youth are 40 years from reaching the top position to change the system. The politicians are living on outdated and unsustainable ideology not reflecting the current situation that the people with most to live for, the youth have to say. So as another generation looks to go by the wayside one can only imagine that in another 40 years, you or I shall be taking office and changing things. The only question is can we learn and adapt or will the bomb go off?