Not a particularly positive blogging.

What the fuck I should be to get respect? Not a linguist or a tranlator, that's for sure. This branch of science is not even titled as "science" by any other branch of science. Another field in the No-No Zone is anything to do with art: studying art, owning a gallery or, -fact forbid!- if you dared to spend your time *creating* art, being an.. ar.. art.. [cold sweat for saying the abomination].. an artist. Literature... it's okay if you sell a lot no matter what you wrote, like Jari Tervo, Arto Paasilinna etc. but even they are regarded a bit like in need of a "real" occupation.

And the real occupations?
¤ a medical doctor; preferably a brain surgeon (never mind that the need for brain surgeons is limited). A heart surgeon goes, too, but only if they're the top of their field. If you're a GP... well, you know, if one isn't even a medical doctor of a specialised field, they must be failures and thus not deserving any respect. An MD who researches AIDS/HIV or cancer, they're respectful. But if you spend you're time for such petty things as the cure for the common cold or -*shivers*- a pain restraint for women in labour... well, I mean, seriously, have you no self-respect, no ambition at all?! And whatever you do: don't be a nurse! That's only for women and since they'll do it anyway as they're grateful for any scraps left for them like malnutritioned dogs, you don't have to pay them enough. If they demand more, they are of course greedy; nursing is a calling and therefore it should actually be free of charge for the society.

¤ a physicist; preferably one disproving solid theories, like Einstein or Newton or the like. If you work at the CERN... well, it's a fancy palce alright, but what' the use of finding out the building blocks of the universe since you can't sell them with good profit to the highest bidder?

¤ a fire-fighter; but only if you are killed on duty while saving a baby from a fiery collapsing building, and just in time you get the child out but the building collapses on you...

¤ a police; but only if you -and you alone, no help from anyone is allowed- catch a serial killer terrorising the well-paid burgeois white-collar economists and their lifestyle.

¤ an inventor; but only if you're invention is to give you an aura of an altruistic, selfless sacrifice á la bona fide, and only if you're a man ("because, you know, women never can invent anything, and even if they did it's something useless like a more efficient and safer domestic applicant, and, you know, we men don't need those since we have women to do every fucking thing for us.. except the fucking HAHAHAHAHAH....")

¤ a judge or a lawyer; everyone hates them but respects them; plus they're well-paid so they must be respected.

¤ a CEO of some male industry

Anything done for one's own interest without the prospect of getting a lot of money as fast as possible is not valued? Why can't it be that people are respected for pursuing their own interests, their attempts to have a satisfying life even if -and in most cases- it doesn't pay you a really fancy mansion, a couple of acres of ground, your own tennis court and a few Lamborghini cars?

And then there are these people -economists- reinforcing this division and telling everyone they're worthless pieces of shit unless they get the fancy mansion et al. by morally questionable pay play. These people also try to push their "values" to people who do not want them, who still have balls to stand up for them and pursue their interests instead of money.

-----

What's the point of graduating from the university, as a Master of Philosophy? It should be a MBA or KTM, no other is worthy of respect or even the trouble of attaining it in the first place. Is it really that it doesn't matter how much you enjoyed or were interested in, say, literature; the sole purpose should be making money, and literature sure ain't doing that? Are all non-economic/non-IT fields really waste of resources? Because, let's face it, the only morale in this world is in making money and gaining your own benefit regardless of the means. Who cares about enjoying anymore? It's all about making money, and humanists don't do that. Recession or not, I'll end up in as an underpaid McDonald's worker. Is graduating really worthy of getting myself a T-shirt saying "Hello! I am a Master of Philosophy. Would you like ketchup with your French fries?"

----

A rather questionable article on the "kylterit vs. humanistit" debate can be found here: http://www.kylteri.fi/arkisto/kylteri203.pdf. Sounds very much like an appeasement attempt. "Beneath the cold, cruel, and utterly selfish exterior is a sensitive human who plays saxophone in the evenings." Well, fuck off Mr. Saxophone; bullshit! Do they really expect that to be even remotely plausible excuse?!

---

www.loesje.fi