Amen, sister. I imagine our society won't get its priorities straight until it is forced to do so by outside influences. Why fix something that ain't broke (in a sense)? Forget that the country can't survive without the influence of most of its least paid workers...
Next Topic: Older is Wiser
He said: The funny thing about growing up is realizing how little you really knew about the world when you were younger. My brothers take every opportunity to point out that in my younger years, I swore to never drink, never smoke, not even speed while driving. Nonetheless, I do all of these things. In fact, the only thing remaining that I swore never to do that I actually have never done is use drugs. I swore for the longest that I would never grow up, and dammit if I didn't do that as well. It never ceases to amaze me, the revelations that come to me as I get older about life and how it all works.
In a sad way, I think the less idealistic and the more understanding I've become, the more complete of a person I've become. Strangely enough, some of my moral and ethical failures in life have enabled me to do good in situations I would not have been able to otherwise. My problem is I kind of like who I am now, all things considered. I can not remember any other period in my life in which I've been more comfortable with who I am.
Having said that, I wonder what the future holds for me. Will I look back on this period of my life and wonder exactly what it was I was smoking? Will I ever return to some semblance of my younger self? Who knows? It should be interesting to find out, however.
Isn't this really a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of situation? When you're younger, and faced with certain events in life, you simply don't have the experience to understand how the choices you make will affect you in the future. By the time you gain that experience, the choices have typically already been made and the consequences dealt with. Is this the blessing of life as we know it, or is it a curse?
28 September 2004
She said:
I do partly define myself by what I do "for a living." And I do, to a degree, judge others by their choices. I guess the big things for me are passion and commitment. Do you like your job? Not every day, of course, but overall. Everyone hates her job sometimes. Are you committed to doing the best you can do at your job? Why would you do something you hate? You have choices. You have a responsibility to make yourself happy; start with finding something you want to do for at least 6 of the 8 hours you spend each day at work! My opinion, of course.
I do understand why some people don't like art. I don't much understand how people don't think about buildings. We spend a ton of time in them each day -- most of our 24 hours. They are extremely important in defining how we live our lives. But that's a totally different topic.
Society does look down on me, to a degree, and will never count me much of a success because I make little money -- much less than a stripper in a good club, I would guess. But I have more respectability than the stripper. But so many people are more than willing to put themselves deeply in debt to pretend they have money -- the cars and clothes to prove it -- and I don't understand it. So maybe this does dovetail nicely into your topic of lives of excess.
We do accord a sort of hero worship status to celebrities with nothing much to offer. Some actors do have a craft they share with us. Same with some musicians and sports stars. But the level of adulation that is awarded to them, along with ridiculous salaries, is out of bound with what they give us. And then, in a time of need, you are often cared for by some of the most overworked, least well-paid workers on the planet: fire fighters, police officers, and nurses.
Suffice it to say, in summary: Our priorities are WAY off.
I do partly define myself by what I do "for a living." And I do, to a degree, judge others by their choices. I guess the big things for me are passion and commitment. Do you like your job? Not every day, of course, but overall. Everyone hates her job sometimes. Are you committed to doing the best you can do at your job? Why would you do something you hate? You have choices. You have a responsibility to make yourself happy; start with finding something you want to do for at least 6 of the 8 hours you spend each day at work! My opinion, of course.
I do understand why some people don't like art. I don't much understand how people don't think about buildings. We spend a ton of time in them each day -- most of our 24 hours. They are extremely important in defining how we live our lives. But that's a totally different topic.
Society does look down on me, to a degree, and will never count me much of a success because I make little money -- much less than a stripper in a good club, I would guess. But I have more respectability than the stripper. But so many people are more than willing to put themselves deeply in debt to pretend they have money -- the cars and clothes to prove it -- and I don't understand it. So maybe this does dovetail nicely into your topic of lives of excess.
We do accord a sort of hero worship status to celebrities with nothing much to offer. Some actors do have a craft they share with us. Same with some musicians and sports stars. But the level of adulation that is awarded to them, along with ridiculous salaries, is out of bound with what they give us. And then, in a time of need, you are often cared for by some of the most overworked, least well-paid workers on the planet: fire fighters, police officers, and nurses.
Suffice it to say, in summary: Our priorities are WAY off.
27 September 2004
So I decided to post my response while at work (what better place to do so?) :)
On Work...
He said: Hmmmmm. Let's tackle society first. I don't know that it is what you do so much as how much money you make in general that makes the first great distinction between people. A very simple divide is salaried vs hourly work. Salaried implies at least a lower middle class lifestyle, hourly implies somewhere at or just above the poverty level. Being salaried carries the assumption that you likely went to a college of some sort and got a degree, and that your life is somewhat successful. Being hourly carries the assumption that you likely slept through high school, or that your college football career didn't take off. Either way, it also implies a somewhat unsuccessful life. There are plenty such divides we can make... take the case of a exotic dancer (read: stripper). They are likely to be young girls, many of whom are not college educated (although some do it "to pay for college"), who may be looked down upon for getting paid to degrade themselves, but who are sometimes paid very well to do so. Is there such a thing as a stripper with a successful life in society's view? Not really, but it seems like by the rules of income, such a thing should be possible. So I'm thinking sum total that society's view on your career can only indicate a guess as to how successful your life might be at a general level, as opposed to guessing specific aspects of your life. Actually, I take that back--there are plenty of social stigmas attached to career choice. Let's take mine first: according to society, The Comptuer Science Guy(tm) is likely to make a good salary, even capable of reaching six figures. He (let's face it, this ain't a career for women, according to society) is likely to be rather nerdish and have bad luck with girls. The Art Historian(tm) is unlikely to make a large amount, depending on the market they work in. They are likely to be intelligent, almost in a know-it-all type way. They are likely to not understand why the masses do not share their love for the arts (I'm totally guessing here). So really, money is not the end all be all factor in society's perception of you. You can make a lot of money and still have a job that society frowns upon or thinks less of you for (drug dealer, prostitute, lawyer, Computer Science Guy). In general, how important this is to you depends on how much you care about others' perception of you.
As for me, my only purpose for money is to enable me to do things (see posts way back for more). I don't really see myself defined in my career. It is what I do, but it is not who I am. Parts of it certainly describe me, the love of computers/technology, the problem solving. But I am vastly much more than that. I truly define myself in my actions, and I don't mean from how others perceive or are affected by my actions. I mean that I define myself for myself in the things that I have accomplished (of which career is only a small part). To a lesser extent, I define myself by my tendencies.
Are we lacking balance between the two? Certainly. However, by definition, stereotypes make general assumptions based on a subjective average. People are not likely to stereotype themselves. Therefore, their view of themselves and society's view are pretty much destined to differ greatly.
Let's take a prime example, shall we? Love her or hate her, one word that I have heard used recently to describe everyone's new favorite heiress Paris Hilton is successful. Are you kidding me? This is a girl who used a sex video to propel herself to stardom! She has about ZERO redeeming social qualities. You wanna talk about someone who doesn't enxergar the world beyond its proper umbigo? Now she's on TV, writing books, soon to be in movies, you name it, you'll see her. Her "choice" of career, heiress, defines her as the following, according to society: young, attractive jet-setter with a strong sense of fashion and an addiction to the limelight/popularity. An heiress is unlikely to understand a normal life, having never had to lift a finger a day in her life to earn money. Now Paris is a success because she is all of these things (attractiveness is up for debate). This is even more strange when you look at the fact that socially speaking, she should be scorned or at least laughed at for letting her sex video come out. But I guess if it worked for Pamela Anderson (and to a MUCH lesser extent, Tonya Harding)...
I guess we've come to a point in our society where we worship the decadent lifestyle. You can see it in every form of media, especially TV and music. Gangsta rap and worshipping the ghetto/thug lifestyle has given way to hip hop music that promotes money and women without so much the criminal element. TV shows like Nip/Tuck and Rescue Me (my two current favorites, oddly enough) would have us believe that plastic surgeons and firemen are up to their asses in hot women willing to have outrageous sex at the drop of a hat. You almost start to feel like you're doing something wrong if your life ISN'T like that. Man, that's a pretty big digression, even for me. I guess I should have suggested the rise (so to speak) of the decadent lifestyle as the next topic... your thoughts, please?
On Work...
He said: Hmmmmm. Let's tackle society first. I don't know that it is what you do so much as how much money you make in general that makes the first great distinction between people. A very simple divide is salaried vs hourly work. Salaried implies at least a lower middle class lifestyle, hourly implies somewhere at or just above the poverty level. Being salaried carries the assumption that you likely went to a college of some sort and got a degree, and that your life is somewhat successful. Being hourly carries the assumption that you likely slept through high school, or that your college football career didn't take off. Either way, it also implies a somewhat unsuccessful life. There are plenty such divides we can make... take the case of a exotic dancer (read: stripper). They are likely to be young girls, many of whom are not college educated (although some do it "to pay for college"), who may be looked down upon for getting paid to degrade themselves, but who are sometimes paid very well to do so. Is there such a thing as a stripper with a successful life in society's view? Not really, but it seems like by the rules of income, such a thing should be possible. So I'm thinking sum total that society's view on your career can only indicate a guess as to how successful your life might be at a general level, as opposed to guessing specific aspects of your life. Actually, I take that back--there are plenty of social stigmas attached to career choice. Let's take mine first: according to society, The Comptuer Science Guy(tm) is likely to make a good salary, even capable of reaching six figures. He (let's face it, this ain't a career for women, according to society) is likely to be rather nerdish and have bad luck with girls. The Art Historian(tm) is unlikely to make a large amount, depending on the market they work in. They are likely to be intelligent, almost in a know-it-all type way. They are likely to not understand why the masses do not share their love for the arts (I'm totally guessing here). So really, money is not the end all be all factor in society's perception of you. You can make a lot of money and still have a job that society frowns upon or thinks less of you for (drug dealer, prostitute, lawyer, Computer Science Guy). In general, how important this is to you depends on how much you care about others' perception of you.
As for me, my only purpose for money is to enable me to do things (see posts way back for more). I don't really see myself defined in my career. It is what I do, but it is not who I am. Parts of it certainly describe me, the love of computers/technology, the problem solving. But I am vastly much more than that. I truly define myself in my actions, and I don't mean from how others perceive or are affected by my actions. I mean that I define myself for myself in the things that I have accomplished (of which career is only a small part). To a lesser extent, I define myself by my tendencies.
Are we lacking balance between the two? Certainly. However, by definition, stereotypes make general assumptions based on a subjective average. People are not likely to stereotype themselves. Therefore, their view of themselves and society's view are pretty much destined to differ greatly.
Let's take a prime example, shall we? Love her or hate her, one word that I have heard used recently to describe everyone's new favorite heiress Paris Hilton is successful. Are you kidding me? This is a girl who used a sex video to propel herself to stardom! She has about ZERO redeeming social qualities. You wanna talk about someone who doesn't enxergar the world beyond its proper umbigo? Now she's on TV, writing books, soon to be in movies, you name it, you'll see her. Her "choice" of career, heiress, defines her as the following, according to society: young, attractive jet-setter with a strong sense of fashion and an addiction to the limelight/popularity. An heiress is unlikely to understand a normal life, having never had to lift a finger a day in her life to earn money. Now Paris is a success because she is all of these things (attractiveness is up for debate). This is even more strange when you look at the fact that socially speaking, she should be scorned or at least laughed at for letting her sex video come out. But I guess if it worked for Pamela Anderson (and to a MUCH lesser extent, Tonya Harding)...
I guess we've come to a point in our society where we worship the decadent lifestyle. You can see it in every form of media, especially TV and music. Gangsta rap and worshipping the ghetto/thug lifestyle has given way to hip hop music that promotes money and women without so much the criminal element. TV shows like Nip/Tuck and Rescue Me (my two current favorites, oddly enough) would have us believe that plastic surgeons and firemen are up to their asses in hot women willing to have outrageous sex at the drop of a hat. You almost start to feel like you're doing something wrong if your life ISN'T like that. Man, that's a pretty big digression, even for me. I guess I should have suggested the rise (so to speak) of the decadent lifestyle as the next topic... your thoughts, please?
Ja, I never meant that it didn't happen -- I didn't mean to say that people using Love for all sorts of nefarious purposes was unknown. Just meant that it's wrong. We seem to have some very messed up ideas about love and relationships right now, as a society. But that's a whole other topic entirely. But to anyone out there manipulating someone through love (parents doing it to their kids included): STOP IT! YOU ARE BEING BAD, WRONG, AND EVIL.
So, hmmm. New topic: Work.
Some people view the purpose of their lives through what it is they get paid to do. So, by definition, you are, sum and total, a computer science guy (did I remember that right? Something like that, for sure). And I, by that definition, am an art historian. The outcome of this definition of self/life is that money ends up being the deciding factor. I define who I am by what pays me. How important are work and money in defining an individual by society's definition of self? How important are work and money in how you define yourself? Are we lacking balance in this conception?
So, hmmm. New topic: Work.
Some people view the purpose of their lives through what it is they get paid to do. So, by definition, you are, sum and total, a computer science guy (did I remember that right? Something like that, for sure). And I, by that definition, am an art historian. The outcome of this definition of self/life is that money ends up being the deciding factor. I define who I am by what pays me. How important are work and money in defining an individual by society's definition of self? How important are work and money in how you define yourself? Are we lacking balance in this conception?
24 September 2004
As usual, to each their own :)
I can certainly tell you that in my past relationships, the end of "If you loved me, you would..." was rarely if ever any of the endings you provided. I like your endings a lot better. Certainly, I care about what my girlfriend needs, but when I get that sense of them using love as a means to get what they want (AND IT HAPPENS, BELIEVE ME)... that's when things get difficult for me.
I asked about accepting one without the other because I've seen people do it all the time. Not that it seems to really work, but I've seen it done. My parents are a prime example of this. But then again, they come from a different time, a different understanding of a relationship and marriage. More so, there are some guys out there who are simply incapable for whatever reason of saying they love someone. But they will do all sorts of things that show it.
Anyhoo, next topic. Your pick.
I can certainly tell you that in my past relationships, the end of "If you loved me, you would..." was rarely if ever any of the endings you provided. I like your endings a lot better. Certainly, I care about what my girlfriend needs, but when I get that sense of them using love as a means to get what they want (AND IT HAPPENS, BELIEVE ME)... that's when things get difficult for me.
I asked about accepting one without the other because I've seen people do it all the time. Not that it seems to really work, but I've seen it done. My parents are a prime example of this. But then again, they come from a different time, a different understanding of a relationship and marriage. More so, there are some guys out there who are simply incapable for whatever reason of saying they love someone. But they will do all sorts of things that show it.
Anyhoo, next topic. Your pick.