wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (07/11/85)
This is aimed primarily at Julia Harper and Cheryl Stewart, plus to anyone who read their responses to an earlier posting of mine: I will not include lots of quotes (I hate that!); I expect that you can remember what was recently seen on the net. To remind everyone of the context, though, let me say that this all began from a discussion of the economic impact of marriage, whether men benefit more than women, and I posted a comment descibing my own situation, wherein I felt that my wife garnered quite a bit of economic benefit, mainly because it allowed her to do just what I would want to do -- to stop working for a living, and to do basically what she wanted to do. I have discussed this with my wife and am taking her copies of the posted responses, to which she will compose her own rebuttal (to steal her thunder, let me mention that she thinks you-all are full of it :-). However, I think I'll jump in with both feet here myself, and state that you who feel that she "lost something", that she somehow surrendered her potential and lessened herself by doing what she did, don't know what you-all are talking about. Your problem is related to something that was discussed a few months back on net.social -- I had posted a comment about "defining" people by their jobs -- that it was common and seemingly unavoidable, but that it was a bad thing. People are *NOT* characterized by *work* -- *work* is what you do to earn money to really *live* the rest of the time. If you want to "define" or "characterize" a person (assign them to some slot for classification purposes, maybe to sort them in your mind or whatever), you will be much more accurate and much better served by looking at ther HOBBIES than at their jobs. Some of the comments Ms. Harper and Ms. Stewart posted indicate that they have fallen into the trap of thinking that the *job* is all-important; that you are only a success if you have a *good job* and that your quality is somehow measured by your work-position in life. To you I say "bullfeathers!" What the hell are your kind of people going to do when you retire, anyway? You have nothing to yourself but this arbitrary, outside- assigned status, which will go away automagically when you hit age "n", and then you become one of those pathetic wretches who see retirement as a bleak tunnel of "nothing to do" until death. You will either be one of those who hang on to their jobs for far too long until forced out, or will retire and then die in a year or so. Your job is NOT your life. It doesn't matter, really, what job you hold, as long as it pays enough to fulfill your requirements and isn't too unpleasant to endure for the time you have to spend at it. It is nice if you can have an enjoyable job, but you must remember that such is an anomaly in human history; only recently did such a concept arise. I have a job I like -- it lets me do all this yakking on the net! -- but that isn't something you can expect; you have to luck into one. Up until modern times, if one had to work for a living, the job was hard, unpleasant, and probably dangerous. Only now can we indulge in this talk about jobs being "fulfilling" and discuss "work quality" and the like. If I had enough income to quit today, and still provide adequate support for both the needs (food, shelter, etc.) and the enjoyments of life (basically what I characterize as "hobbies", whether it be quiltmaking, ham radio, gun collecting, eating out in different and interesting restaurants, reading, etc. [including some things not usually considered as a "hobby"]), I'd quit. If the idea of having no job, even if you had income, is distressing to you, I fear you lack internal resources and a strong-enough self-image. As a matter of fact, when the wife and I married, we were both at just about the same government job-grade level. We agreed soon thereafter that the other one could retire as soon as one of us reached a certain higher grade. It didn't matter which one of us. Well, the wife decided that she didn't want to wait that long, and it was up to her that she decided to quit that job when she did. (She doesn't view "jobs" the way you do, I think. She has chosen to hold a *lot* of different jobs in her life; right now, she is continually turning down offers from potential employers who recognize her superior performance and skills -- it is her decision to do what she wants.) (By the way, I have since realized that it would be much more hassle than it would be worth to reach that higher grade [GS-13] myself, and have no desire to do so anymore. You might say that I "came to my senses" about that.) By the way, she was giggling over the idea, from one of the posted responses, that I was "subjugating" her. If you knew us, that thought would certainly never enter your mind. I accept that you can only view us as stereotypes because all you have seen of us is some written material from me. That's OK, I can view you as a stereotype too. So there! (Does it hurt? Maybe that's the cause for these twinges I'm getting... :-) In another day or so, I'll post her comments about all this, when she gives them to me. Added note: I view with disdain your comments about "ambition". This is often, and falsely, characterized as a desirable trait. It is not. "Ambitious" people cause trouble for us all, and are usually unpleasant and in many instances contemptible. If you have innate ability, you will "rise", or be selected for some suitable position, without having to claw your way to it over the bodies of your co-workers, simply because you will stand out from the mediocre mass. If you don't have this ability, and get to a higher position through maneuvering, you cause untold grief for all involved. Will Martin USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin or ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA
crs@lanl.ARPA (07/12/85)
Bravo, Will Martin! > People are *NOT* characterized by *work* -- *work* is > what you do to earn money to really *live* the rest of the time. If you > want to "define" or "characterize" a person (assign them to some slot > for classification purposes, maybe to sort them in your mind or > whatever), you will be much more accurate and much better served by > looking at ther HOBBIES than at their jobs. How true! I *really* like my work -- but I *love* my play. > If I had enough income to quit today, and still provide adequate support > for both the needs (food, shelter, etc.) and the enjoyments of life > (basically what I characterize as "hobbies", whether it be quiltmaking, > ham radio, gun collecting, eating out in different and interesting > restaurants, reading, etc. [including some things not usually considered > as a "hobby"]), I'd quit. If the idea of having no job, even if you had > income, is distressing to you, I fear you lack internal resources and a > strong-enough self-image. I couldn't agree more. This in no way suggests that equal oportunity for *all* is not an ideal for which we should fight but I *do* think that some of the follow-ups to Will's article were getting on him pretty hard. On the other hand, Will's (earlier) article may have been a *wee* bit provocative for this forum of enlightenment (;->) > I view with disdain your comments about "ambition". This is often, and > falsely, characterized as a desirable trait. It is not. "Ambitious" > people cause trouble for us all, and are usually unpleasant and in many > instances contemptible. If you have innate ability, you will "rise", or > be selected for some suitable position, without having to claw your way > to it over the bodies of your co-workers, simply because you will stand > out from the mediocre mass. If you don't have this ability, and get to a > higher position through maneuvering, you cause untold grief for all > involved. Nicely said. > > Will Martin > -- Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (07/15/85)
> Your problem is related to something that was discussed a few months > back on net.social -- I had posted a comment about "defining" people by > their jobs -- that it was common and seemingly unavoidable, but that it > was a bad thing. People are *NOT* characterized by *work* -- *work* is > what you do to earn money to really *live* the rest of the time. If you > want to "define" or "characterize" a person (assign them to some slot > for classification purposes, maybe to sort them in your mind or > whatever), you will be much more accurate and much better served by > looking at ther HOBBIES than at their jobs. > > Will Martin > Right on! Something I have noticed is how difficult it is to NOT define oneself by one's job. I wonder if there is anybody who has ever successfully been able to introduce themselves and project an accurate impression of who they are without mentioning their job. Maybe what is wrong is the idea that it is possible to get an accurate impression of someone from very limited contact with them. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
shebs@bcsaic.UUCP (stan shebs) (07/16/85)
In article <11494@brl-tgr.ARPA> wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) writes: >Your job is NOT your life. It doesn't matter, really, what job you hold, >as long as it pays enough to fulfill your requirements and isn't too >unpleasant to endure for the time you have to spend at it. Speak for yourself. >It is nice if >you can have an enjoyable job, but you must remember that such is an >anomaly in human history; only recently did such a concept arise. Let's not mangle our history - for most of history people usually didn't have "jobs" as such. Almost everybody was a farmer or shepherd or some such. I can't believe that everyone hated the work of farming either - even today there are many who rather farm than anything else (despite the unprofitability and other problems). As for jobs not being "enjoyable", what are we to make of the boys who ran away to sea, never to come back, even when they had opportunities? What about artists and craftsmen (that weren't in a guild or caste)? Did they have to pursue their work, when merchanting would have paid much better? There have always been people who've been pleasantly surprised to find out that they can make a living at something they're willing to do for free! Read Toffler's "The Third Wave" for some good insights on the possible relationships between work and jobs... stan shebs
diego@cca.UUCP (Diego Gonzalez) (07/23/85)
Our occupations are not our only (or, in some cases, really apt) definitions of ourselves. Still, being asked what we do is a throwback to a time when occupations were considered to suit the person involved in them. I have this "prostitute" theory. In life, we make certain choices (free?) as a matter of course. One set of those regards our worth in given situations. Depending on our perceived position at the moment, background, needs, social pressure, and whatever other factors, we negotiate our best deal and "sell" some portion of our selves to the bidder. True, we reject some offers, but at some price we settle. Very often, the trading is done with an "employer" who then has certain rights in defining our "jobs." When a buyer of our services claims more of our souls than we feel was bargained for, we look for additional compensation or other places to work. Some people disagree with this analogy, but in a way doesn't it put an objective lens on the issue. We do make a sale of some part of our beings, usually with some generalized concept of time and energy commitment. Many people (and this attitude is reinforced by most management programs) look on work as a separate part of life. Work is business with its own set of rules and modes of behavior, and then there is a personal life that is separately maintained. Work is something one does for income; life is outside of that. I don't think that's so. It seems to me that work is our broad contribution to society. One should agree both morally and temperamentally with one's occupation. After all, we expect to spend one third of our most productive years advancing the interests of our employers (even when we are self-employed). In this process, through the contacts and interactions we have with other people and by our individual contributions to our fields, we leave a mark. Considering the importance of work in our lives, then, it seems inexcusable for anyone to assert that we cannot afford to pursue jobs that are both pleasing to us and meaningful. Unfortunately, a lot of folks fear the uncertainty of changing careers, moving to new locations, or altering their patterns of living. When you consider that you have sold some part of yourself for certain returns, however, you can then evaluate whether the deal is satisfactory. Each of us has a life -- just one. To the extent possible, we use that experience. Are we reaching for our own goals or for the ones we think are expected of us? When people ask me what I do, I tell them I am a writer. That's what I am at this point of my life. I have rejected some situations because they were not right for me. I know what I have sold and on what terms. If you're not what you do, you should be in transition to doing something else. Sophie's right about it taking some time to know or appreciate someone. Even so, I think saying what we do for a major portion of each week does tell some significant things about ourselves. For it's not only the job but how we express our feelings about it that creates an impression in other peoples' minds. If I tell you I'm a welder but I hate my work, you are going to ask me what I'm intend to do about it. All of that discussion becomes part of your image of me. So why object to people asking what we do? It's an expression of interest and it's our opportunity to present ourselves effectively. Maybe even change our image of ourselves and our potentials in the bargain.
lmv@houxa.UUCP (L.VANDERBILT) (07/24/85)
>Bravo, Will Martin! > >> People are *NOT* characterized by *work* -- *work* is >> what you do to earn money to really *live* the rest of the time. If you >> want to "define" or "characterize" a person (assign them to some slot >> for classification purposes, maybe to sort them in your mind or >> whatever), you will be much more accurate and much better served by >> looking at ther HOBBIES than at their jobs. > >How true! > >I *really* like my work -- but I *love* my play. > >> Will Martin > >Charlie Sorsby >...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs >crs@lanl.arpa WELL PUT TO BOTH WILL MARTIN AND CHARLIE SORSBY, I always felt that work is work and that I do the best I can at it, but the most important thing in life, is your private life. Work could never be my life. Lynn Vanderbilt cornell!vax135!houxm!houxa!lmv