The most demoralizing thing ever. Revised.

About a year and a half ago, I got my current job in DC. At the time, it was probably the biggest relief of my life, as I'd spent the two previous years in various states of quasi-unemployment (read: near-unbearable anxiety and fretfulness) and, when I got this job, I was rapidly coming to the conclusion that my amassment of fine art degrees and deep-seated intellectual curiosity about all that will not ever turn a profit had rendered me entirely unemployable. I wrote this post about this wholly demoralizing article. I'm still pretty convinced that I am the very soul described within that article. How is it not squarely miraculous that I've got a job at all (albeit, one I bitch about a lot... one that doesn't pay me for the work I do... one that often conflicts with a number of my ethical stances regarding eduction...one that doesn't actual fulfill me in any intellectual way)? But it's a job nonetheless, and the fact that I holding it down proves that Time Magazine doesn't know everything. Thank Jimmy in heaven. I pay my rent every goddamn month. Seriously. Thank Jimmy in heaven.

And then, I think, somewhere in the last few months, I encountered yet another article-- one that trumped the aforementioned article's dismal message. I think I would have linked this second article, but it made me so depressed that I just couldn't stomach it, and now I've lost track of it. But, I think I can sum up: the gist of it was that, at various points in the history of women seeking gainful employment, the wage gap between the genders has been attributed to the notion that women aren't as aggressive as men, the notion that women are more emotional, and therefore less able to operate cool-headedly in the workplace, than men, and/or the notion that women are all secretly green slimy slugs beneath there skin and are therefore not to be trusted with the finer (or courser) points of American capitalism. The article went on to say that, as none of these nodes of ridiculousness could be measured in any meaningful way (one teaspoon full of green slime too much and no money for you!), clearly, they could not be the real culprits behind why women make less money than their equally-educated, equally experienced, penis-bearing counterparts.

All that sounds vaguely, tritely positive, right? But then that article just sucks all the wind out of our sails, ladies. It basically says that men who are perceived as aggressive and actually ask for raises are rewarded for their straightforwardness. But employers (male and female alike) perceive women who ask for deserved raises as pushy and demanding and are, therefore, not only likely to deny them their raises, but are also likely to punish them for their pushiness by demoting them! So, either we're not aggressive enough and don't ask for what we deserve or we're too aggressive and are punished for asking for fair compensation for good work done. How does this not sicken us all? So I guess I didn't link that article because I didn't want to think about the studies cited within it any more than I absolutely have to. Dwelling on such things feels like a pretty defeatist activity. And I particularly do not want to be thinking about those studies now, as I'm coming up on two years of pouring out some sloppy quantities blood, sweat and green slime well beyond the stated parameters of my current position. No, I do not think that article's a good one to be obsessing about right now, as god knows I need me a freaking raise.

And then today, I found the most demoralizing article yet. Lucky for me, this one tackles a broader issue than my own piddly little financial worries. This one is about how capitalism doesn't value any of the things that interest and excite me the most. And, bless its little heart, the article sure tries to be positive about that, but I can't help it. I find it deeply, deeply saddening that the only way our American culture can attribute value to the humanities is to espouse a little consolation prize of an argument: the humanities have INTRINSIC value (but none other than that). Three consumptive little cheers for intrinsicity!!

As the article says, the humanities are an end unto themselves and we've got to be satisfied with that. But I'm not. I spent my 20s pretty much avoiding getting a real job because I was just so sure that somewhere out there, someone was going to put a monetary value on all that time I spent sitting around thinking-- about painting and poetry and sex and ethics and all these other little filthy by-products of human existence. But no one did. Because they really are just that-- by-products. And who's gonna pay for theoretical run-off?

I hate how true this whole premise is. It makes me wanna puke.

Because really? If there weren't those things out there, what on earth would I find about which I could give a flip?

Well, there's always creative vegan cooking, electric cars, sexy shoes, hair products that prevent frizz, my dog Noah, and the fact that I can impress my hot chiropractor with how bendy I am as a result of 11 years of yoga practice, right?

I guess I'll just have to go on living.