Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!wmartin
From: wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin )
Newsgroups: net.social,net.women
Subject: Rampant misinterpretation on the net (so what else is new?)
Message-ID: <11494@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 11-Jul-85 11:51:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.11494
Posted: Thu Jul 11 11:51:11 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 15-Jul-85 07:21:35 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: USAMC ALMSA
Lines: 103
Xref: watmath net.social:822 net.women:6391

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