"Tired of Playing Monopoly?" by Donna Langston

When reading the article, Tired of Playing Monopoly, I was met with conflicting opinions on whether I agreed with all of the views the author had or not. I understood and fully accept the arguments in primarily the whole first half of the article; the definition of class and classism and how one’s class is based on more than just the amount of money they make. Your “class” is also formed by one’s cultural background because it can affect the educational opportunities you are more likely to have if you are one race or another…where you will typically eat and shop, and even where you work or the positions you are likely to hold in that job. One sentence that I felt particularly summed up the definition of class nicely was the following:



           As a result of the class you are born into and raised in, class is your understanding of the world
           and where you fit in; it’s composed of ideas, behavior, attitudes, values and language; class is how
           you think, feel, act, look, dress, talk, move, walk; class is what stores you shop at, restaurants you
           eat in; class is the schools you attend, the education you attain; class is the very jobs you will work at
           throughout your adult life ( Langston, 2007, p.1).


I also believe that accepting the titles of class that society has put on you, whether a good or bad label, only further emphasizes classism. Those who are considered “low class” individuals must not settle for what they get or blame themselves for the economic positions they are in, unless of course your unemployment and lack of incoming funds is due to something you have directly done. (For instance, an excessive drug problem or doing other illegal things that has caused you to be viewed as unemployable to most companies. You cannot blame society or others for your own poor judgment.) I also believe that if we keep believing, as a society that is, that the current economic distribution is unchangeable, we are only increasing the chances of classism and widening the gap between the wealthy and the poor.


My main disagreement with the author, Donna Langston, in this article begins on page 103. The author described the “working class” as having distinctions within it, the “white” working class and then everyone else, people of color, female-headed households, and so on. The author does not consider the “white guys in overalls” to really be part of that working class, even though they could be working just as hard and receiving the same low pay and lack of benefits. I feel the author is semi biased here, because I do not think that every working class white man is necessarily living the life of luxury. Not that the author says this but she seems to feel there is a great distinction between the two. There are in fact many white men that suffer the same classist stereotypes as others simply because they work in these low paying less desirable jobs. How are these people’s privileges any different, when they are also working all hours of the night away from their families and getting the same benefits from their jobs? Outside of work, things could be different, but if the author is speaking specifically about this type of working conditions, I do not think it is fair to place them in a different “working class” altogether solely based on their color. I could be wrong, but this is how I feel.