Upper & Upper Middle-Class Parents - Essential Knowledge? - Page 18

[Linda on the move]

Originally Posted by erigeron 

As far as teaching your kids to talk about sports, I think it would be more just teaching them that if they don't know much/anything about the subject, they get a lot further by not being rude about it or saying they hate it. Kind of a social nicety thing. Not like you have to sit by for hours while people talk about it, but being able to listen to the conversation for a bit isn't bad. And also, if they understand a bit but something comes up that they're confused by, they can potentially ask, because people like explaining things they are interested in. (On the other hand, this may vary for guys. My experience as an adult woman becoming more interested in football has been that guys are more than eager to answer any questions I have, but a boy or man who asked some of the questions I've asked might just get made fun of.)

I think in the context of the OPers question, being able to carry on a basic conversation about the major sports is just part of it, if you are male or female, esp. if you are a female who wants to be "one of the guys" in a business meeting.

No one can know everything about every team for every sport, and asking questions IS polite. My DH's current projects have him spending a lot of time in Canada, so he is very up on Canada hockey right now. This certainly isn't something he grew up with, and he has learned a lot by asking questions and being truly interested.

And it does help in difficult business situations.

And the women who make it in his field can drink beer and talk about sports. It's cultural literacy. This is what culture is now.

And my point when I brought up sports was that if you are wanting to help your kids be socially and professional successful, teaching them to carry on polite conversations about things like sports is one of the things you could do.

But I agree that being able to engage a wide variety of people on a wide variety of subjects is really key -- my DH's boss, who has about about 2,000 people under him, can carry on a conversation with ANYONE and make them feel like they are the most interesting person to talk to. He can even do this with my DD who has autism, and he is one of the few people who can. He is also amazing at his job and consistently works 80 hours a week, but his strong social skills have been a tremendous asset to his career. If he were just as smart and hardworking without the social no-how, he would be a project lead making a fraction of the money. 

I'm still pondering the question of what upper middle/ upper class people own, and I really don't know. We are in that group, but got here by moving a lot for promotions. And we have cats. So the things we once had that were breakable are long gone. The families I know with more money are quicker to buy their kids the latest/greatest gadget, but plenty of people who are really tight for money seem to come up with the money for Kindle Fires/iPads/ etc.

(I know more people live like they have money than who actually have money)

[FarmerBeth]

I've just gone back to school in a male dominated field (environmental engineering for the natural resource sector).  I really agree with the above about women typically male fields needing a comfort level with sports and traditionally "male" topics.  I'm grateful for having an involved father who always included me in what he found interesting. 

I think that even though the OP was specifically asking about skills specifically about the upper and upper-middle income class, more generally what this is really about are social skills and cultural literacy.  I think many of these skills are across social and economic barriers.  I've met many people who started I one social "class" and because of great people skills are able to be comfortable in settings outside of what they grew up with (despite what one PP said, I think lots of people can manage to adjust outside of their "class").  My little part of Nova Scotia has many examples of politicians and industry leaders with parents who grew up mining coal who are now having dinner with politicians or consulting with universities.  I think having a genuine interest in others and in learning more about the world outside one's own little corner counts for more than any specific skill or experience.
 

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by FarmerBeth 

I've just gone back to school in a male dominated field (environmental engineering for the natural resource sector).  I really agree with the above about women typically male fields needing a comfort level with sports and traditionally "male" topics.  I'm grateful for having an involved father who always included me in what he found interesting. 

I had an involved father who included me (us, really) in what he found interesting. That didn't include sports, though. When I was about...12?...my dad watched the World Series on tv, and I was in shock. To this day, I have no idea what prompted it, but he'd never watched any kind of game before that, and never watched another one again. My brother didn't watch sports (until recently - in the last few years, he and my sister have both become hockey nuts).

However, this is also one of the many reasons I didn't pursue a career in any male dominated fields. (I seriously considered engineering when I graduated from high school.) It's also one of the many reasons I won't work for large corporations. I go to work to get my job done, not to spend all my time talking about something as mind-numbing as sports (no insult to sports fans - I'm sure they'd find many of my interests to be mind-numbing, too). All the social crap that goes on in the workplace drives me insane. I so miss my first job, where it was about the job.

I think that even though the OP was specifically asking about skills specifically about the upper and upper-middle income class, more generally what this is really about are social skills and cultural literacy. 

I agree.

I think many of these skills are across social and economic barriers.  I've met many people who started I one social "class" and because of great people skills are able to be comfortable in settings outside of what they grew up with (despite what one PP said, I think lots of people can manage to adjust outside of their "class"). 

I agree with this, too.

DS1 flips between totally different social scenes (from my ex's family - alcoholics and drug addicts, for the most part, who are under or unemployed to his girlfriend's family - skiing at Whistler, and possibly a European cruise next summer - and everything in between). He has the knack. I didn't fit into my own social class as child, don't fit into my current socio-economic class (not really relevant, as dh doesn't socialize much), and will probably never fit into any class. I don't have the knack. I think dd1 has it, to a reasonable degree. DS2...probably not. It's hard to tell with dd2, because she's still little, but I think she's like ds1.
 

[Blt178]

Apologies, i actually didn't realize it WAS an old thread until after I replied. Wasn't looking to stir up an old pot, just felt compelled to reply to what felt to me to be an outrageous thread.

Originally Posted by Linda on the move 

I also encourage reading the entire thread before responding.

I read quite a bit and tried to take in as much as I could (17 pages y'all!) and it seemed most were fully indulging in the idea posed by the OP which got my blood pumping before I double checked the posting dates.

[Storm Bride]

I was talking to dh about this thread last night. He commented that he has to agree about sports, and that, in a work sense, it becomes more and more important the higher you climb. No wonder I always preferred to be a peon.