Oh? I was thinking of a study I saw and lost, but differences in benefits to those groups sound fascinating to me also. I would not have guessed the answer to be all that different, again net of pay. I won’t ask you to run me a free study (but if you want to… ;) ) but do you have any basic ideas on the matter philosophically?
A study requires data which I neither have nor can easily get :-/
Handwaving my guesses about job benefits...
Housewives: more growth and development (capabilities, self-respect, etc.), less reliance on the breadwinner, larger social circles, a chance to achieve something notable.
Trust fund kids: similar to housewives but without the reliance issue. Also, a lesser chance to spend your life being a nobody doing nothing,
Welfare recipients: potential to climb out of the poverty pit, breaking dependence habits, reintegration into productive society, etc.
Retired people: less boredom and social isolation, a potentially meaningful way to spend your time, a (limited) purpose to get out of bed each morning and make oneself presentable.
I see similarities, but the differences are useful too. Thanks for the reply.
I’ve self-identified as three of those things as the same person (retired, housewife, and independently wealthy (“trust fund kid” feels like I’d imagine the ‘n’ word feels to a black man or “faggot” to a gay one. Pretty unoffendable myself, but just fyi) )as full disclosure.
If I find the study I want, I’ll let you know. Thanks for the help!
“trust fund kid” feels like I’d imagine the ‘n’ word feels to a black man or “faggot” to a gay one.
So, them’s fighting words in your neck of the woods? Does uttering them dramatically raise the probability of someone being punched in the face in the immediate future? or gasp! not being invited to the next bbq?
It’s somewhere a little below the ‘n’ word or the ‘r’ word, but above “douchebag” or “liberal.” As one might imagine, it doesn’t come up much. And again, I was commenting on how it feels from the inside, not on how it looks to the audience.
Mentally challenged person. I wonder if it’s considered less offensive among people who use etymologically similar words, like firemen (flame retardant) or biologists (to retard growth.)
Like for me, “faggot” is not in my calling-people-it vocabulary—AT ALL; I know like five gay people, all of whom cool, one of whom my uncle, and of none of whom am I afraid, so please don’t think I’m homophobic - but in hearing others’ reactions it seems to be more offensive to people who collect less firewood. If the ‘n’ word were also a day to day common noun, I wonder if I would be more okay using it demonstratively even with such an evil history.
I wonder if it’s considered less offensive among people who use etymologically similar words, like firemen (flame retardant) or biologists (to retard growth.)
It’s less offensive among those who actually work with retarded people :-/
“Mentally challenged” type of insults seem to have their own cycles of use. Words like “idiot”, “imbecile”, or “cretin” used to be a clinical diagnosis, then stopped being medical terms, and nowadays are considered to if not mild then non-horrible.
I suppose that makes sense. Still raises my heart rate when I hear it, but that’s my problem not the speaker’s, and I’ll defer to people with more experience on propriety.
I can easily come up with very very different subgroups who “do not have a job”, e.g.:
housewives
trust fund kids
chronic welfare recipients
retired people
The benefits of having a job are likely to be very different for them.
Oh? I was thinking of a study I saw and lost, but differences in benefits to those groups sound fascinating to me also. I would not have guessed the answer to be all that different, again net of pay. I won’t ask you to run me a free study (but if you want to… ;) ) but do you have any basic ideas on the matter philosophically?
A study requires data which I neither have nor can easily get :-/
Handwaving my guesses about job benefits...
Housewives: more growth and development (capabilities, self-respect, etc.), less reliance on the breadwinner, larger social circles, a chance to achieve something notable.
Trust fund kids: similar to housewives but without the reliance issue. Also, a lesser chance to spend your life being a nobody doing nothing,
Welfare recipients: potential to climb out of the poverty pit, breaking dependence habits, reintegration into productive society, etc.
Retired people: less boredom and social isolation, a potentially meaningful way to spend your time, a (limited) purpose to get out of bed each morning and make oneself presentable.
I see similarities, but the differences are useful too. Thanks for the reply.
I’ve self-identified as three of those things as the same person (retired, housewife, and independently wealthy (“trust fund kid” feels like I’d imagine the ‘n’ word feels to a black man or “faggot” to a gay one. Pretty unoffendable myself, but just fyi) )as full disclosure.
If I find the study I want, I’ll let you know. Thanks for the help!
So, them’s fighting words in your neck of the woods? Does uttering them dramatically raise the probability of someone being punched in the face in the immediate future? or gasp! not being invited to the next bbq?
It’s somewhere a little below the ‘n’ word or the ‘r’ word, but above “douchebag” or “liberal.” As one might imagine, it doesn’t come up much. And again, I was commenting on how it feels from the inside, not on how it looks to the audience.
The rankings of insults in subcultures is a fascinating topic :-) What’s the “r” word, redneck?
Mentally challenged person. I wonder if it’s considered less offensive among people who use etymologically similar words, like firemen (flame retardant) or biologists (to retard growth.)
Like for me, “faggot” is not in my calling-people-it vocabulary—AT ALL; I know like five gay people, all of whom cool, one of whom my uncle, and of none of whom am I afraid, so please don’t think I’m homophobic - but in hearing others’ reactions it seems to be more offensive to people who collect less firewood. If the ‘n’ word were also a day to day common noun, I wonder if I would be more okay using it demonstratively even with such an evil history.
It’s less offensive among those who actually work with retarded people :-/
“Mentally challenged” type of insults seem to have their own cycles of use. Words like “idiot”, “imbecile”, or “cretin” used to be a clinical diagnosis, then stopped being medical terms, and nowadays are considered to if not mild then non-horrible.
I suppose that makes sense. Still raises my heart rate when I hear it, but that’s my problem not the speaker’s, and I’ll defer to people with more experience on propriety.