First of all, I don’t want anyone to be offended because they think I’m calling them a loser (or a winner for that matter) or anything. I’m just using the terms as a shorthand for the traits society seems to value:
Winners
-Serious
-Attractive
-Popular or extroverted
-Athletic
-Rich
Losers
-Slackers or goofballs
-Sloppy or unattractive
-Loner or introverted
-Unathletic, bookish, stoners
-Poor
This seems to be a common theam in films and TV and in many of the comments people make on the boards:
-Serious people are uptight pricks
-Attractive and popular people are shallow and vain
-Athletic people are usually bullies or jerks
-Rich people are arrogant, greedy and corrupt
on the other hand
-Slackers or goofballs are cooler
-Sloppy or unattractive people are more “real”
-Loners have more depth
-Unathletic, bookish people are more thoughtful and intelligent
-Poor people are hardworking
Prior to the election of George W. Bush, I’d say you had a point. But these days it seems the rich, attractive winners are indeed a bunch of bullies beating up the bookish. The plot thickens when they exploit the sentiments you describe by trying to pass themselves off as the humble salt-of-the-Earth being beaten up by “elitist snobs”.
If there’s one thing that can be thanked for making it “cool” to be a “loser,” it’s rock music. A whole book could be written about the reasons why, but in rock and roll, it’s ok to be ugly (shit, look at the Stones or any number of other big rock bands,) it’s OK to be disorganized and debauched, it’s OK to care more about having a good time than making money, etc etc.
The more extreme the rock gets (as opposed to poppy) the more extreme these rules hold true. When you get into punk, specifically, it’s a lifestyle, not just a kind of music, and everyone else be damned.
Punk is the anti-hip-hop. Money and looks and popularity go out the window.
I think you’re extrapolating from a few, isolated examples. Yes, there is a thing called an “anti-hero” which tries to challenge the conventional concepts of who a hero is, but wouldn’t it be kinda boring if heroes were always cut from the same mold? OTOH, there are endless TV shows that stick with the conventional theme of attractive = good and unattractive = evil. Think of the low-lifes that are usually crooks in the cop dramas.
The one exception that I’d agree to is the “evil industrialist” stereotype in films and TV. You know, the guy who seems to revel in the misfortunes of others, and laughs as he dumps industrial waste into babies’ bath water. It’s a cartoonish, almost Lex Luthor personality. How often is the president of a company or chariman of the board of some large conglomerate portrayed sympathetically?
We like to root for the underdog, because we so often think of ourselves as the underdog, the loser. Who do you want to win the war: the uncouth, bumpkin Colonists or the polished, highly-trained, well-dressed Redcoats? Similarly, who do you want to get the girl: the socially awkward nerd with zits and glasses, or the rich, suave, athletic, popular guy who has everything going for him?
Most people have had a zit, felt ugly, and felt that their peers didn’t like them. Far fewer people have been rich, beautiful, Prom King, game-winning quarterbacks.
Dude, what is with your hard-on for this particular topic?
Non-jerks ARE morally superior to jerks. Being nice to people and having empathy for others is a good thing. Not all rich/popular/athletic people are jerks (or vice versa), however, a lot of people have had experiences in their past which have led them to form certain conclusions about various types of people. In my experience, less well-off people do work harder than rich people. I have known more shallow extroverted people than introverted people. There are exceptions to every rule, but you can’t blame people for having tendencies. In most cases, these tendencies are instilled by the various people you meet. If the next ten guys in a red hat punch you in the face and take your wallet, you’re going to believe that guys in red hats are jerks. So it is with a lot of people and your so-called “winners.”
There is also another thing, often the pastimes of the “winners” are implicitly anti-empathetic or self-absorbed. If you’re the kind of person who regularly buys blood diamonds and designer clothes made in sweatshops, that to me means that you lack empathy. If you spend hours working on your body or obsessing over your looks, that to me means that you’re self-absorbed. I’d think the same things of a loner or introvert if they did them, and some do.
Really, is this thread anything more than another variation on how downtrodden you are as a rich frat boy? A thirty year old “man” should be over these fifth grade categories.
What Davenport said. You seem to be taking your cues from TV and movie stereotypes and extrapolating to real life. Get a grip.
Me? I have one litmus test that I apply to everyone. If they open their mouth and something interesting comes out, they’re a “winner.” Empathy, kindness, and humility beats good looks and money any day of the week.
It’s a shame that some people still go to bed shallow.
Is “intelligence” in itself not one of the traits that society seems to value? It isn’t included in either of the OP’s lists, unless he’s using “bookish” as a synonym for it (which I would argue with).
If intelligence isn’t considered to be a trait of a “winner”, then I would think that there definitely is something wrong with the “winner qualities” list.
I don’t know how heroic Soros is, but most businessmen are just decent, moral guys doing their jobs. You only read about the small percentage that are real criminals. I know you subscribe to the “big = bad” schools of thought, but I’m not aware of any data that acutally validates that notion.
Well, I was going to write an underdog diatribe, but davenportavenger swooped in before me. I agree wholeheartedly. The “winners” you described are viewed as people born lucky, born with looks & money, so who wants to root for that? It’s boring. They’re supposed to do well. They might even have roman numerals after their name and people with roman numerals after their name tend to lack initiative. The “losers” you described are enjoyed because they defy odds & are valued for qualities that are actually enjoyable to others.
But we’re not talking about businessmen in general, but about the top-ranked of them, the CEOs and board chairmen. Of whom I am personally acquainted with none, of course. My negative assessment of those shitbags is based mainly on their collective malevolent activities in the public sphere,* via such organizations as the Heritage Foundation, National Association of Manufacturers, Business Roundtable, etc., etc. The rat-bastards might not actually want to dump toxic wastes into babies’ bathwater, but they definitely want to be free to do so whenever that might enhance the bottom line, and never to have to answer to anybody for it.
*Of course, they’re not generally praiseworthy for their purely business-related decisions either, to judge by the recent track records of Enron, Halliburton, etc., etc.
Actually, I was taking my cue from Evil Captor’s thread on lookism. Not to single him out, but I sense a lot of resentment towards good looking or successful people.
and another thing,
**Davenport ** seems like a prick. His entire post is rife with bitterness. Yeah, I was in a fraternity like ten years ago in college. Sure, I buy my clothes from mid-range designer stores like Banana Republic. And while I’m not “rich”, I make a decent living because I work damn hard at a job I hate. I guess that gives him the right to personally attack me out of the blue.
But he makes my point for me. Why does one person see…say, a popular athlete and say “I wish I could play ball like him” while another sees a stuck up asshole jock. Some people see a rich guy living in a big house and say “someday I’m going to live like that” while others say “someday, I’m going to get that SOB!!”
