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