Originally Posted by bexley

This is all true. But what bothers me sometimes is that this apparent right to perpetually identify yourself with a profession is limited to specific ones, usually for superficial reasons. It existed amongst pilots and stewardesses when air travel was hip. It exists amongst diplomats and high-level politicians. It exists for fetishized jobs like doctors and lawyers. It's just...ugh. And some cachet also bizarrely exists amongst middle class 20's who've had a job that pays much less than they're "supposed" to make in the social scheme. This account sfor a small portion of messengers, but probably the most boastful section.

If people take away a sense of who they are from a job, great. But most often, they're in love with the title ("president") or the perpetual cred and stereotypes associated with it ("I used to be a messenger--I don't just 'ride' my bike"), which does the opposite of engendering a real identity.

I just find that lots of people who've had some sort of blue-collar job but are in fact middle class tend to forever think of themselves as "different" and or hardened because of said job. I used to sail and spent months on the water at a time. Yea, it changed me, but I don't pat myself on the back for it or like to make it known; if I do it just sets up a dumb facade for people to think of me as some adventurous, sea-loving dude described in Moby Dick's opening lines.

I just hate the instant-identification associated with pretty much every job and its "style", whether you're a dude in a suit assumed to be a prude or a messenger-clad ex-messenger assumed to possess radical thoughts. Sorry for the pissy social analysis.