What is this fervent notion that a job does not define a person?
Psychiatrists, counselors, psychologists always ask this particular request: "tell me who you are; Define who you are; Describe who you are." Then the responder says they are a teacher or a doctor, or they start to list their accomplishments, perhaps their band made regional, and they are a band leader.
Then the psychiatrist abruptly interrupts them and says, ''I am not asking what you do for a living. I am not asking what your job is. I am asking whoo youu arrre..."
Contrary to popular opinion, yes you can in fact judge people based on the job they picked. It is not the only definition, no, but a job offers a good bit of insight into a person's choices and mindset. The occupation that someone decides to do for a living showcases how they see themselves fitting into the world, how they could contribute to the world, how they perceive themselves. It shows what they consider a priority in their own lives, and what they see as being important enough that they should dedicate their time and energy and effort into perpetuating into the future.
If someone works on Wall Street, that tells me he is incredibly shallow and only cares about money, is probably a misogynist ahole, thinks he's the 3hi+. He is one of the "stupid sons of rich men," has a sense of entitlement, expects to have everything handed to him on a silver platter, doesn't expect to have to work hard ever.
On the other hand, if someone is e.g., a teacher, or a SMET person (like me!), or founded an institution like Habitat for Humanity, then that shows that this person cares about people and wants to affect the world in a positive way. Innovation, helping the world become a better place, improving upon the state of the world and its inhabitants. Also it shows that he has a passion for a distinct subject, he knows what he wants and he goes for it. It also shows that this person is practical and realistic. He chose a field that will actually get him a job and not just one that sounds flowery and abstract (i.e., useless) such as a degree in mass communications or psychology or some 3h +.
But these types insist that defining a person by their job is shallow.
Teachers at public grade school are possibly the most overworked, under-appreciated, *underpaid* occupation. They are also some of the most selfless, magnanimous, dedicated people in society. They went into this profession knowing full well that the pay is a trickle in a bucket. And yet they soldier on anyway, because they know that these kids are counting on them. They charge on because people are depending on them.
When these ignorant types say that people should not be defined by their jobs, they are revealing their own latent ungratefulness.
They do not have any appreciation for teachers. They do not have any gratitude, they do not have any regard whatsoever for the magnitude of significance teachers have to society. They are confessing that they basically take teachers for granted.
I mean, really. What the hell else are you looking for? What else do you expect them to do to earn your approval? What else do teachers have to do to prove to you that that they care greatly about their students? And that they are making enormous positive contributions to society?
Let us take a closer look at the types of jobs that probably originally sparked the battle cries of, "nobody should be defined by their job."
Garbage collector, manual laborer, city sanitation worker. Do you know what I see when I look at someone in those job positions? This tells me that the person is in a bind and probably desperately needs the money. Look, no one would ever pick "trash guy" as their career choice and area of expertise. Let's be honest here. No little kid grows up dreaming of being a garbage man.
This is what I mean when I say that a person's choice of job reveals many clues about him or her. Recall the liberal accusation that it is shallow to derive opinions from a person's occupation. The above doesn't sound shallow to me. On the contrary, it is quite profound.
----
Hey, you know what? I just realized something within the course of typing this. The people that insist that jobs not define a person -- do in fact harbor these same snooty, stuck-up opinions of manual labor jobs.
Wait a secc... Does this mean YOU see them as somehow being less worthy of a nod to them as a human being?? You, the open-minded liberal, who always preaches never to judge a book by its cover, and to always always always consider everyone and their dog equal.
They are simply trying to pacify their own guilt at being so snooty.
Look, I might be judgmental, but at least I am honest. At least I admit it. I never made the claim that a dog-pooper-scooper-maker is in any way equal to a UN delegate.
Psychiatrists, counselors, psychologists always ask this particular request: "tell me who you are; Define who you are; Describe who you are." Then the responder says they are a teacher or a doctor, or they start to list their accomplishments, perhaps their band made regional, and they are a band leader.
Then the psychiatrist abruptly interrupts them and says, ''I am not asking what you do for a living. I am not asking what your job is. I am asking whoo youu arrre..."
Contrary to popular opinion, yes you can in fact judge people based on the job they picked. It is not the only definition, no, but a job offers a good bit of insight into a person's choices and mindset. The occupation that someone decides to do for a living showcases how they see themselves fitting into the world, how they could contribute to the world, how they perceive themselves. It shows what they consider a priority in their own lives, and what they see as being important enough that they should dedicate their time and energy and effort into perpetuating into the future.
If someone works on Wall Street, that tells me he is incredibly shallow and only cares about money, is probably a misogynist ahole, thinks he's the 3hi+. He is one of the "stupid sons of rich men," has a sense of entitlement, expects to have everything handed to him on a silver platter, doesn't expect to have to work hard ever.
On the other hand, if someone is e.g., a teacher, or a SMET person (like me!), or founded an institution like Habitat for Humanity, then that shows that this person cares about people and wants to affect the world in a positive way. Innovation, helping the world become a better place, improving upon the state of the world and its inhabitants. Also it shows that he has a passion for a distinct subject, he knows what he wants and he goes for it. It also shows that this person is practical and realistic. He chose a field that will actually get him a job and not just one that sounds flowery and abstract (i.e., useless) such as a degree in mass communications or psychology or some 3h +.
But these types insist that defining a person by their job is shallow.
Teachers at public grade school are possibly the most overworked, under-appreciated, *underpaid* occupation. They are also some of the most selfless, magnanimous, dedicated people in society. They went into this profession knowing full well that the pay is a trickle in a bucket. And yet they soldier on anyway, because they know that these kids are counting on them. They charge on because people are depending on them.
When these ignorant types say that people should not be defined by their jobs, they are revealing their own latent ungratefulness.
They do not have any appreciation for teachers. They do not have any gratitude, they do not have any regard whatsoever for the magnitude of significance teachers have to society. They are confessing that they basically take teachers for granted.
I mean, really. What the hell else are you looking for? What else do you expect them to do to earn your approval? What else do teachers have to do to prove to you that that they care greatly about their students? And that they are making enormous positive contributions to society?
Let us take a closer look at the types of jobs that probably originally sparked the battle cries of, "nobody should be defined by their job."
Garbage collector, manual laborer, city sanitation worker. Do you know what I see when I look at someone in those job positions? This tells me that the person is in a bind and probably desperately needs the money. Look, no one would ever pick "trash guy" as their career choice and area of expertise. Let's be honest here. No little kid grows up dreaming of being a garbage man.
This is what I mean when I say that a person's choice of job reveals many clues about him or her. Recall the liberal accusation that it is shallow to derive opinions from a person's occupation. The above doesn't sound shallow to me. On the contrary, it is quite profound.
----
Hey, you know what? I just realized something within the course of typing this. The people that insist that jobs not define a person -- do in fact harbor these same snooty, stuck-up opinions of manual labor jobs.
Wait a secc... Does this mean YOU see them as somehow being less worthy of a nod to them as a human being?? You, the open-minded liberal, who always preaches never to judge a book by its cover, and to always always always consider everyone and their dog equal.
They are simply trying to pacify their own guilt at being so snooty.
Look, I might be judgmental, but at least I am honest. At least I admit it. I never made the claim that a dog-pooper-scooper-maker is in any way equal to a UN delegate.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment