to find it strange how some MN's are SO offended by the word Chav

[falolenhard]

Chav:
meaning a lower-class person who displays brash and loutish behavior and wears real or imitation designer

Snob:
A person with an exaggerated respect for high social position or wealth who seeks to associate with social superiors

Both these terms are derogatory.
So why is it ok to call someone a snob (I bet nobody would say a word and it wouldn't get pulled)- but not a chav on here?

To be offended by one and not the other is a form of Inverted Snobbery?

vintage,
you have hit the nail on the head.
A lot of people who live in council houses want the very best for their children and want them to turn out decent citizens. Just like any other class of society.

this is why it makes my piss boil when well-meaners say that calling people chavs is wrong.
To me, chavs are like the mother in Debenhams - people who don't care how their children turn out. People who DON'T have any manners. People who don't have any standards and sense of decency.
I am NOT like that.

So why lump me (and others) in with her - the Chav?

Oh and to be clear it's not interchangeable with "not working" either. Claiming benefits is not "chavvy"

Round my way everyone is middle class but it is still an insult when someone is deemed 'sooo middle class' meaning utterly boring and predicitable.
So someone dresses exactly like all the other safe mums or dads. They drive a boring VW and have a nice car that mostly the husband uses, dull ( but well paying) jobs, help out on lots of committees/ school activities etc.

If you are middle class and have a bit of individuality no one mentions your class at all. Chav, Tory scum, soo middle class etc are used by people to identify groups that have similar lifestyles. Which is stereotyping which we are told is dreadful but is an easy way to highlight whatever point you are making. I'd be amazed if people who love AIBU didn't think this way quite a lot actually. Like the whole 'Daily Mail' insult. Why is stereotyping a whole readership OK then?

Like the whole 'Daily Mail' insult. Why is stereotyping a whole readership OK then?

Predictably I'm a Guardian reader (although I default to The Telegraph if the Guardian is sold out, good obituaries and arts coverage). I have wondered about this, and the way so many posts have links to stories on the Mail's website.

Why do so many of you read its website if you despise the paper so much?

Lots of people hate the Daily Mail.

but I think LOTS of people read it

Personally I skim through the daily mail either online or hard copy if free in a cafe - just to forewarn myself as to what everyone else is getting worked up about!

I fully agree with ChickenMe, a chav to me is just badly behaved and are (generally) pretty proud of it. I do use the word (quite often) but it's ALWAYS been because of the individuals behaviour-not income. I grew up with not much money....but you'd never know it the way I conduct myself and aim to have more. Same with anyone rich, I will only judge you on the way you behave. Lack of income is no excuse to behave badly.

Wonder what all these 'I'm ^really socially aware and like to read the latest bullshit lets get down and understand Council House people lot' would make of that?
I assume that includes me OP since I said I wanted to buy the Chavs book? Do you know it's bullshit, you've read it I take it? You are extremely rude you know.
I work with young people who get this label. Ironically, they apply the label to others, not realising that the better off view them as chavs. And in terms of harm, it's the labels the ruling classes apply that count. People on this thread are applying a million qualifications to make sure the word refers only to behaviour'and has nothing to do with social disadvantage. That just isn't the way it's applied in the non-mumsnet world.

What is clear from reading this thread is how words can take on a life of their own. Just one tiny four letter word! If course no word is intrinsically bad - it's the meaning and thought process behind it (different people will be more offended by different words) which can change over time.

Personally 'chav' to me is a horrid word used to be sneers about some stereotypical WC fashions etc - and generally I think stereotypes can be quite limiting. But it's clear that a lot of people would disagree with me!

To be fair, people on MN are offended by fucking everything. Sometimes I read an OP which is a little clumsily worded and my heart sinks, because I know all the responses will refer to that, rather than the issue at stake. And sure enough, two posts in, it all begins.

Chav, to me, is a shorthand description - no different from Hooray Henry, oik, yob, snob, Townie.

And no amount of frothing at the mouth from anyone will make me think otherwise.

Yes, it's lazy. But it does give the reader an instant image of what you mean and that's what effective communication is about.

Exactly what Sunna said. To me it's no different to yuppie or Sloane ranger (if anyone remembers them).

People on MN are offended by opinions that differ from theirs full stop.
Unless you're going on a thread to agree with the majority be prepared for the personal attacks!

^ ( agree with beth )

With all the problems we've got - war, terrorism, ebola, you'd think people would have better things to worry about than the word chav.

David Beckham's a chav - I doubt he loses any sleep over it.

Chav does not equal working class or a council house occupier.
It's patronising to working class people to seek to defend them when the word chav doesn't even refer to them. Unless you actually think it does? In which case you have class anxiety.
It IS an insult because vulgar behaviour is not acceptable and deserves disparaging comment. No doubt if I were to behave in a vulgar fashion someone somewhere would insult me.
My Dad grew up in a council house and he always uses the words pond life or oik to refer to someone who would today be called a chav. These people aren't working class; they tend to avoid work! And they don't seem to be in the slightest bit oppressed or struggling with anything apart from a lack of good sense. Conversely they seem very full of themselves and happy to wallow in their own swill.

Could anybody please tell me if they consider themselves a chav and are as such, happy to be called so to their face? And that includes attributes or possessions being described by others to your face as chavvy?

If anyone can give me an answer to this, that would help me work out if it's an insult or not.

I think any word bandied about is affected by the intent behind it. Therefore, 'Chav' or 'Snob' might be laughingly discussed by friends in a conversation, but you can usually tell if it's intended as an insult.

On some forums (such as here) the word 'Chav' might be used, then crossed out and another word inserted in it's place, to infer that poster said the word in error. But, of course, we all know it was not said in error, it was intended to be an insult, and the poster thought they were being humorous.

In the same way that many teenagers will ridicule someone for being 'Gay' because of how they might be dressed or in some way they may have behaved. The word 'Gay' in that instance being used as an insult, when, in fact, it is a perfectly legitimate, descriptive term, used in the relevant circumstances.

Sorry if I haven't explained that clearly - hope you see what I'm trying to convey.
In short, any word can be seen as an insult if it is said in a certain way and with obvious offensive intent behind it.

A snob can also mean a person who resents someone they consider above them in station. It isn't used that way so much these days, though.

@heraldgerald it is an insult but not that strong IMO. I have done, worn or liked chavvy things before and been called chav by mates or workmates. It was in good spirits. Eg I had a Croydon Facelift hairdo, It'd be unlikely for someone to have the word chav called out to them in the street by a stranger as most people don't shout things out in the street (apart from chavs lol) or say things to people's faces.
I've spoken to people who've referred to themselves as chav. So it's not necessarily a serious insult. Kind of akin to Guardian reader, Daily Mail reader maybe?

Meh. If you're offended by the word chav then you need to get over yourself.

To me a chav is an antisocial, rude, bad mannered lout, male or female. If someone is behaving like that then I will refer to them as a chav. Why on earth wouldn't I? I doubt they give much of a shit about it and, it clearly sets the scene if I was describing a situation.

Chavs can be rich or poor, but the common denominator is that they are bad mannered idiots.

Yes, but what is the word for a posh person who speaks with a RP accent, has lots of cash, dresses nicely and still drinks heavily and is unpleasant to his/her children, or whatever? 'Boor' is the closest I can think of and it doesn't have the same currency, does it?

Chav is definitely to do with class and money - you might want to preserve it if you feel there's an important distinction which needs to be made between 'working class full of integrity and ambition for children' and 'working class and naff, tasteless and coarse in behaviour', but it is, I would say, inarguable that 'chav' is a class-based insult.

I'd call their behaviour chavish for sure. Boor, I suppose. Boorish twat definitely.

Really, though? Would you call the Bullingdon Club chavs?

The OP states it's class based.

I only hear it used to describe people that the user is painting a picture of a a bit of a Jeremy Kyle participant.

Don't hardly see it any more, apart from MN, who seem fond of it.

Skina: To me a chav is an antisocial, rude, bad mannered lout, male or female. If someone is behaving like that then I will refer to them as a chav. Why on earth wouldn't I?

I'm struggling to believe you would call a pissed-up idiot at a May Ball a chav, no matter how rude and bad-mannered. Not wishing to target you personally, but I think all this 'it's just about behaviour' is a tad disingenuous.

I know the OP acknowledges it is class-based, but lots of people seem to be arguing that it isn't.