The Republic of Heaven

Anoria wrote:You need a lot of patience to be an archaeologist and spend months if not years sifting through empty dirt without finding anything worthwhile or groundbreaking.

Not really, they usually know there's things where they're digging. And it depends what you mean by worthwhile. Plus the digs always look like a blast, my archaeology lecturers always had interesting stories to tell (someone even died in a dig in Scotland ). The only reason I thought better of it as a career was because the pay is rubbish and you'd have to spend a lot of time away from home.

I agree with Dawn. Digs are only glamorous when something of note is discovered, and even then it’s only interesting to those of us who love obscure, useless relics. From everything I’ve seen, heard, and read of digs, there are many years of harrowing, tedious work behind even the most mundane finds.

Oh, and all of you archeonuts should check out the History Channel’s special on the finding of Pharaoh Hatshepsut’s mummy, it was awesome. The archaeologist who found had been looking for 30 years. I expect that her discovery is one of those moments that archaeologists live for, which most never experience.

Mockingbird wrote:I agree with Dawn. Digs are only glamorous when something of note is discovered, and even then it’s only interesting to those of us who love obscure, useless relics. From everything I’ve seen, heard, and read of digs, there are many years of harrowing, tedious work behind even the most mundane finds.

No, it really isn't like that. No one said digs are glamerous but they are fun, and things don't have to be 'of note' because everything is interesting and of note to the archaeologist. And they don't just dig around willy nilly hoping to find something, they either know there's going to be something there from sources or because it's already been dug up or they do land surveys first. And it's not like that's the only part of their job, they do teach most of the time too...

For the longest time I wanted to be an archaeologists but when i learned about the work involved I let my ambitions die.

What do you mean by that? The degree is piss easy and I'd hardly call the work of an archaeologist taxing

What you would call "piss easy" is what I would call Hell on earth. Any work is torture to me which is probually why i am getting C's and D's in all my classes only my tests are keeping me up.

When I grow up, I want to be...


... a Toys R Us kid.

When I was a young'n I wanted to be a garbage truck driver because my mom used to leave the garbage man $10 during the holidays. Ten dollars!

I just asked my mom what I was like as a kid since I don't really remember. Apparently I was so short I could walk under tables without ducking my head down. Between fitting in tiny spaces and gardening I was pretty much set. Also, I had an alter ego named "Chuf" that I would turn into when I wore a special pair of sunglasses. Well... that hasn't changed.

And now I want to be a zoological veterinarian. Maybe.

Blossom wrote:

Mockingbird wrote:I agree with Dawn. Digs are only glamorous when something of note is discovered, and even then it’s only interesting to those of us who love obscure, useless relics. From everything I’ve seen, heard, and read of digs, there are many years of harrowing, tedious work behind even the most mundane finds.

No, it really isn't like that. No one said digs are glamerous but they are fun, and things don't have to be 'of note' because everything is interesting and of note to the archaeologist. And they don't just dig around willy nilly hoping to find something, they either know there's going to be something there from sources or because it's already been dug up or they do land surveys first. And it's not like that's the only part of their job, they do teach most of the time too...

How do they have sources if nobody goes to dig without having sources? It's quite common (on the authority of three academic archaeologists I remember talking to, one of whom was recruiting students to go on a dig) to spend a year digging little holes all over a forest where there might be something, and never come up with anything more than is already known to be there. Saying "everything is interesting to the archaeologist" is like saying microbiologists find it interesting and worthwhile every time someone sneezes. There are only so many arrowheads and bone fragments you can dig up before it gets really tiresome, even if you love your job and what you're working for. It's disgustingly naive to think otherwise.

Not that I have anything against it. I admire the people who actually do follow that as a career, especially for their patience. And their mad flintknapping skillz.

Blossom wrote:

Zealous Monk wrote:For the longest time I wanted to be an archaeologists but when i learned about the work involved I let my ambitions die.

What do you mean by that? The degree is piss easy and I'd hardly call the work of an archaeologist taxing.

i feel like professional archaeologists with academic funding usually have their doctoral degrees (ie. not piss easy) and have publishing/research and teaching responsibilities to whatever academic institutions, which might be a little more taxing... also arranging digs, research funding, competent research teams, etc.

jessia wrote:

Blossom wrote:

Zealous Monk wrote:For the longest time I wanted to be an archaeologists but when i learned about the work involved I let my ambitions die.

What do you mean by that? The degree is piss easy and I'd hardly call the work of an archaeologist taxing.

i feel like professional archaeologists with academic funding usually have their doctoral degrees (ie. not piss easy) and have publishing/research and teaching responsibilities to whatever academic institutions, which might be a little more taxing...

The most taxing aspect for my archeology professors seemed to be how grossly underfunded their projects were, how much time they had to spend teaching to pay the bills, and cutting through red tape just to get a chance at fieldwork. The only reason I didn't end up an archeology major was that I accidentally signed up for Craft & Technique of Story Writing 350 instead of Archeology Survey and Mapping 350, and my fate was sealed. I should have made it my minor, I had enough credits for it.

Mockingbird wrote:

jessia wrote:

Blossom wrote:

Zealous Monk wrote:For the longest time I wanted to be an archaeologists but when i learned about the work involved I let my ambitions die.

What do you mean by that? The degree is piss easy and I'd hardly call the work of an archaeologist taxing.

i feel like professional archaeologists with academic funding usually have their doctoral degrees (ie. not piss easy) and have publishing/research and teaching responsibilities to whatever academic institutions, which might be a little more taxing...

The most taxing aspect for my archeology professors seemed to be how grossly underfunded their projects were, how much time they had to spend teaching to pay the bills, and cutting through red tape just to get a chance at fieldwork. The only reason I didn't end up an archeology major was that I accidentally signed up for Craft & Technique of Story Writing 350 instead of Archeology Survey and Mapping 350, and my fate was sealed. I should have made it my minor, I had enough credits for it.

funding outside of the hard scientists is pathetic these days.

I never had and still don't have any fixed ambition for what I want(ed) to be when I grow up. I could never understand how kids could be so sure about any profession. I went through a phase where I wanted to make some difference to society, but that faded when I realised that those jobs don't make enough money for your wife to stay at home and you would probably end up in the majority where two parents have to work.

I want a job that earns enough money that my wife can stay at home to look after the kids, if she wants to, and we can still be financially comfortable. It's a shame that's an ambition now instead of taken for granted.

krebbe wrote:I realised that those jobs don't make enough money for your wife to stay at home and you would probably end up in the majority where two parents have to work.

I want a job that earns enough money that my wife can stay at home to look after the kids, if she wants to, and we can still be financially comfortable. It's a shame that's an ambition now instead of taken for granted.

I was about to get very angry at you, when I read the qualifier. I think the problem is that in most countries, there's no kind of paid maternity leave (or if there is, it's only for six months or some other ridiculously short period of time).

My mother was at home with me full-time until I was two. She then put me into child care for a year, and says that that year was one of the most miserable of her life. When my sister was born, she took more time off, and then until I was nine and my sister was five, she worked part-time. She went back to full-time when we were both at school, but managed to work only during the hours we were at school. I'd like to have a job like hers where you have the security to set your own hours. Unfortunately that's very difficult.

In Australia, there's a lot of carping on about 'flexibility' in the workplace. Unfortunately, the flexibility is all on the side of employers, making it very difficult for a woman to have a fulfilling career and give her family the kind of attention and care that they deserve. [/feminist rant]

Aletheia Dolorosa wrote:

krebbe wrote:I realised that those jobs don't make enough money for your wife to stay at home and you would probably end up in the majority where two parents have to work.

I want a job that earns enough money that my wife can stay at home to look after the kids, if she wants to, and we can still be financially comfortable. It's a shame that's an ambition now instead of taken for granted.

I was about to get very angry at you, when I read the qualifier. I think the problem is that in most countries, there's no kind of paid maternity leave (or if there is, it's only for six months or some other ridiculously short period of time).

My mother was at home with me full-time until I was two. She then put me into child care for a year, and says that that year was one of the most miserable of her life. When my sister was born, she took more time off, and then until I was nine and my sister was five, she worked part-time. She went back to full-time when we were both at school, but managed to work only during the hours we were at school. I'd like to have a job like hers where you have the security to set your own hours. Unfortunately that's very difficult.

In Australia, there's a lot of carping on about 'flexibility' in the workplace. Unfortunately, the flexibility is all on the side of employers, making it very difficult for a woman to have a fulfilling career and give her family the kind of attention and care that they deserve. [/feminist rant]

i'm writing an essay on women and work right now for my chinese history class and i could easily get into a feminist rant too, where the only "work" that is considered valuable is work a) occurs outside of the home and b) earns money (this is relevant outside of china too of course, basically wherever money exists i think)... and it's stressful. my mom was a stay-at-home mom and my dad doesn't take this seriously as an occupation she's put hella effort into (equal to the effort one would put into a paid, outside job) because it doesn't earn money. and of course it's neccessary to earn money, but i feel like... a lot of families function differently depending on what is possible and how they envision their family and people should be able to recognise that stay-at-home moms and/or dads deserve the same kind of recognition as breadwinners because their contributions to the family are just as valuable. i assume caz is thinking along this line too, i was just inspired by ronni and my essay research for a feminist rant too.

as an aside, i think germany gives fathers bonuses for taking paternity leave. i think it's meant to level out the discrimination against women in hiring practises where they're excluded because of the possibility that they'll have to take time off when they have kids. this way, fathers are also likely to to take time off for the same reasons. although cash incentives can be sketchy, i think it's kind of cool.

jessia wrote:i could easily get into a feminist rant too, where the only "work" that is considered valuable is work a) occurs outside of the home and b) earns money (this is relevant outside of china too of course, basically wherever money exists i think)... and it's stressful. my mom was a stay-at-home mom and my dad doesn't take this seriously as an occupation she's put hella effort into (equal to the effort one would put into a paid, outside job) because it doesn't earn money. and of course it's neccessary to earn money, but i feel like... a lot of families function differently depending on what is possible and how they envision their family and people should be able to recognise that stay-at-home moms and/or dads deserve the same kind of recognition as breadwinners because their contributions to the family are just as valuable. i assume caz is thinking along this line too, i was just inspired by ronni and my essay research for a feminist rant too.

I was not suggesting that unpaid/at home work isn't valuable. It is JUST AS valuable as paid/outside the home work. What I was getting at wasn't debating the relative merits of stay-at-home or working mothers, but rather the horrible working culture we have that is absolutely antithetical to parents spending time with/bringing up their children. Until we address this, nothing will change.

Anyway, sorry for wandering off-topic.

Aletheia Dolorosa wrote:

jessia wrote:i could easily get into a feminist rant too, where the only "work" that is considered valuable is work a) occurs outside of the home and b) earns money (this is relevant outside of china too of course, basically wherever money exists i think)... and it's stressful. my mom was a stay-at-home mom and my dad doesn't take this seriously as an occupation she's put hella effort into (equal to the effort one would put into a paid, outside job) because it doesn't earn money. and of course it's neccessary to earn money, but i feel like... a lot of families function differently depending on what is possible and how they envision their family and people should be able to recognise that stay-at-home moms and/or dads deserve the same kind of recognition as breadwinners because their contributions to the family are just as valuable. i assume caz is thinking along this line too, i was just inspired by ronni and my essay research for a feminist rant too.

I was not suggesting that unpaid/at home work isn't valuable. It is JUST AS valuable as paid/outside the home work. What I was getting at wasn't debating the relative merits of stay-at-home or working mothers, but rather the horrible working culture we have that is absolutely antithetical to parents spending time with/bringing up their children. Until we address this, nothing will change.

Anyway, sorry for wandering off-topic.

i got that, i was just inspired and took off in another direction maybe. but yes, the point is that parents spending time with their kids is valuable.

In my list of jobs that I won't actually pursue:

Landscaper
Floral designer
Gardener
Professional student
Professional photographer
Cake designer
Botanist

... I want to be broke.

When I was younger I wanted to be a veterinarian.

I wanted to be an archaeologist(dunno if that´s written correctly) when I was younger . . . ^^

Given the choice of everything, Prime Minister or World Dictator.

Seeing as that's not likely, an aeronautical engineer.

When I was 6 or 7, I decided I wanted to be a solicitor. I once told this to a guest who asked when I was at my mum's jazz club.

"A solicitor? What would you specialise in?" asked the country gent.
"Err... soliciting?" replied I, none the wiser.

My mum told this to everyone at every family get-together for the next few years and everyone laughed at little me. It took me ages to get it.

As for when I grow up, I want to be happy. Happy is great.

If I can't be Emperor of the Universe then it'll have to be either:

A genetically enhanced Space Marine or an Uber evil sorcerer dabbling in the dark arts so that all fear me!