Unemployed in Greenland

I write this with some hesitance, because I’m often annoyed at people demanding changes in modern life and language as part of what they are “entitled” to and hesitate to participate in that kind of thinking, but…

I recently had to fill out forms for a loan: two loans, actually, one temporary, the other more long term. It bothered me, just a little, that when it asked about employment, I had to put down “Unemployed”. 

I don’t feel unemployed! 

You would think they would have an option for At-Home Caretaker or some such modern claptrap.

Weirdly, there is also no way to pick Royalties as your income.

Share

70 thoughts on “Unemployed in Greenland

    • I did put self-employed on one of the two forms…but the other one, I was told that the process for proving income for 1099’s was long and cumbersome, so it was better just to leave it off.

      Someday, though, John and I hope to be full-time writers, so it’s annoying that there aren’t even slots for royalties as income on most of these forms.

      It really isn’t a big deal, especially for me, because I can claim I’m self-employed. But I feel for my sisters (and in some cases, brothers) at arms. Putting a full time housewife in the same catagory as a guy whose sitting around playing video games because he can’t find a job (obviously not all unemployed are like that, but we exaggerate when blogging, for humorous effect) seems…unkind.

      • I use “Homemaker” if it’s something just for information, and I won’t have to prove income. If it’s a question of income, though, I have to put Unemployed, which does seem rather off.

        • These were computer forms with pre-chosen choices. You think that they would put homemaker, even if it is technically the same as Unemployed, just for the politeness value. Everything else is so politically correct nowadays.

          However, as an opponent of political correctness, I feel I shouldn’t complain too much. ;-)

          • Now, now, we all know that the correct response to a very mildly irritating thought is to get all up in arms about it, be deeply offended by the lack of “Homemaker” on the list of choices, and sue the company that makes the form for $5 million in damages, not because you’re greedy, but because you know you’re right and you want to make sure no other company ever puts another stay-at-home mom (or person sympathetic to stay-at-home moms) through the deep pain and suffering that you (or some theoretical stay-at-home momes) have gone through. ;)

          • I’m sure that Jesus never meant that to apply to situations where someone *really* offends us. *rolling eyes*

            (That is very tongue-in-cheek; I’m with you on being against political correctness and against the Christ-likeness of being eager to sue people.)

          • You know, I thought that there must be some way to twist the Bible to say it would be ok, but I couldn’t think of it. I forgot about that passage; you hit it just right. :)

          • Yes. (I’ve always thought that that was a good argument for the Catholic view of having an authority who can give a final say on how to interpret the Bible. Which is not to say that Catholic bishops haven’t done their share of finding what they want in the Bible.)

          • I’m afraid that I can’t agree with you on that. The Catholic Church seems patterned after a medieval court with all of its potential for vices. And I am not willing to bow down before any one but God.

            If it were truly an absolutely accurate reflection of God’s will on earth, there would never have been the rise of dissident churches. And it didn’t start with Luther.

            John Huss, for example. And John Wycliffe.

          • In what way do you think the Catholic Church is patterned after a medieval court?

            I think the submission required of Catholics to the Church is more akin to the submission required towards the government than to bowing before God. Nor is the Church or the authorities therein “an absolutely accurate reflection of God’s will on earth”; only the formal teachings of the church are protected from error, not the doings or sayings of the Church in general. And certainly it was corruption within it that led to Wycliffe, Luther, etc.

          • Questions, questions

            How can it not be a different sort of submission (compared to government submission) when God is involved?

            How can any man deny any believer communion with God?

            Why is it necessary to have a priest to intercede with God when it is we who have sinned?

            Why is it desirable to pray to saints?

            Why would we want to put priests in a high social position and then demand celibacy from them?

            Why should the formal teachings of the Church be protected?

            I think the Catholic Church/medieval court analogy is obvious. Start with Pope as Emperor. Move on to Bishops and Cardinals as kings or nobility…priests as knights. Nuns as ladies. Privileges given and tithes taken in accordance with the rules for nobility.
            The Vatican is in essence a court.

            I presume you are inferring that Wycliffe, Luther, etc. were themselves corrupt. Less so I would say, far less so than many of the who held the seats of power though all men are of course corrupt. Otherwise they would have had no followers.

            Rejecting the Catholic Church’s authority is not rejecting God.

          • Re: Questions, questions

            >I presume you are inferring that Wycliffe, Luther, etc. were themselves corrupt.

            I thought she was saying, yes, there was corruption in the church at times and that this led to Wycliffe and Luther, etc.

          • Re: Questions, questions

            Yeah, somehow the idea of squeezing over 2.5 regular pages of type into messsages that are by now showing up 2 or 3 inches wide seemed like it might be overkill. ;) But feel free to come over to my blog and join or just read the conversation if you think it’s interesting. :)

          • Re: Questions, questions

            I love questions like this! :)

            Since my answers are rather long, and this conversation is getting very narrow on my screen, I’ve put up my answers in a post on my blog: see here.

            And yes, I was referring to the corruption of the Catholic church, not the reformers. Sorry about not making that clearer.

  1. Homemaker?

    It’s an honorable title.
    (Steve’s grandmother called their good-sized house plus an acre or two Homeacre.)

    Women aren’t the only ones. You should have heard the razzing fifteen years ago when Steve elected to stay home with the tot, as I had the better paying job.

    I suppose there’s nothing for royalties because so few people earn them. Sad though.

  2. Domestic Engineer. I gather that’s what my MIL called it.

    and remember, it’s not just “unemployed in Greenland.” it should be:

    Unemployed!! In Greenland!!!!

    • >Unemployed!! In Greenland!!!!

      So true! Hey, that’s two Princess Bride references in two days for me!

      And to think that Hollywood execs would not let the Stardust people compare themselves to Princess Bride in their ad campaigns because “Princess Bride Bombed!”

        • I love your new picture!

          Princess Bride bombed in the box office, mainly due to the worst ad campaign in history. The posters looked like nice Maxwell Parish scenes with no sign that it was a fantasy movie. I dragged John there, despite his bad reaction to the posters, because I’d read the book. (My uncle gave it to me as a gift when I was a girl.)

          Since then, however, it has become the classic that EVERYONE quotes. ;-)

          • I like my new picture, too, except that it shows up so small. But there’s no way to stick all three kids in a icon photo without having them be small. (In case you want to see a somewhat larger version, I posted the photo to my blog here.)

            That cute little one in the middle of the photo was on my chair with me when I was posting the comment that this is in reply to. She hit the keyboard while I was in the middle of typing; all of a sudden my browser sent me back a page or two. I assumed that my post was lost and decided I didn’t care enough to try to re-type it while she was still there. Imagine my surprise when you responded to a half-written post that I thought never posted! :)

            It is hard to imagine Princess Bride as having bombed. Although I don’t even know when it came out. It was a staple movie of my childhood.

            I’ve read the book, too, and I still have a hard time deciding which I like better. They’re just both so good. :)

          • That’s happened to John and I, too, the weird thought it was gone post thing. ;-)

            My uncle gave me Princess Bride when I was in high school. Back then, it still had an offer to send you additional material that had been taken out of the “original” in the back. I was young enough that I believed in S. Morganstern. I wrote in and got sent something or other. I should still have it, but it isn’t any place accessible. It may be that I lost it during the decades since then.

            It was a beautiful book with an two layered cover. I wish I still had it.

          • You know, I don’t remember how old I was when I first read the Princess Bride. Maybe I was in college. But I was probably still pretty gullible, because I assumed S. Morganstern was real, too, although I may have been puzzling over it by the end. I know I was puzzling over the existence of two countries in Europe that I never heard of; I think it was when I tried to look them up online to find out where they were that I discovered they (and by association Morganstern) didn’t exist. :)

          • >I tried to look them up online to find out where they were that I discovered they (and by association Morganstern) didn’t exist

            That’s pretty clever. I just thought that the story was made up, but the guy was real.

            This made me smile, because there was no internet when I was in college…looking things up on line is soooo nice!

          • I took the basic storyline of the Princess Bride as fable, but during one of the parts that were supposedly edited out of Morganstern’s original, Goldman writes that Morganstern goes on for umpteen (120?) pages about Buttercup packing and unpacking for a trip, and that this was Morganstern’s way of commenting on the frivolity of the royalty of Florin and Guilder. So I thought the countries must exist and must have had royalty, and Morganstern was exercising a time-honored tradition of including political commentary in a fiction tale. And then when I tried to find out where they were, I came across an article that was headed up by something like “Goldman’s Imaginary Kingdoms”, which pretty much covered both the countries not being real and Morganstern not being real, since they were Goldman’s kingdoms and not Morganstern’s.

            And yes, looking things up is very convenient! Which reminds me of this. :) And on the topic of comics, I thought you might enjoy this, too. :)

  3. I did put self-employed on one of the two forms…but the other one, I was told that the process for proving income for 1099’s was long and cumbersome, so it was better just to leave it off.

    Someday, though, John and I hope to be full-time writers, so it’s annoying that there aren’t even slots for royalties as income on most of these forms.

    It really isn’t a big deal, especially for me, because I can claim I’m self-employed. But I feel for my sisters (and in some cases, brothers) at arms. Putting a full time housewife in the same catagory as a guy whose sitting around playing video games because he can’t find a job (obviously not all unemployed are like that, but we exaggerate when blogging, for humorous effect) seems…unkind.

  4. Homemaker?

    It’s an honorable title.
    (Steve’s grandmother called their good-sized house plus an acre or two Homeacre.)

    Women aren’t the only ones. You should have heard the razzing fifteen years ago when Steve elected to stay home with the tot, as I had the better paying job.

    I suppose there’s nothing for royalties because so few people earn them. Sad though.

  5. Domestic Engineer. I gather that’s what my MIL called it.

    and remember, it’s not just “unemployed in Greenland.” it should be:

    Unemployed!! In Greenland!!!!

  6. My husband is self-employed: proving that we have a good income for The Dossier was just appalling. At one time I was coordinating a four-way conference between various Recognized Authorites…

  7. >Unemployed!! In Greenland!!!!

    So true! Hey, that’s two Princess Bride references in two days for me!

    And to think that Hollywood execs would not let the Stardust people compare themselves to Princess Bride in their ad campaigns because “Princess Bride Bombed!”

  8. My husband is self-employed: proving that we have a good income for The Dossier was just appalling. At one time I was coordinating a four-way conference between various Recognized Authorites…

  9. I use “Homemaker” if it’s something just for information, and I won’t have to prove income. If it’s a question of income, though, I have to put Unemployed, which does seem rather off.

  10. I love your new picture!

    Princess Bride bombed in the box office, mainly due to the worst ad campaign in history. The posters looked like nice Maxwell Parish scenes with no sign that it was a fantasy movie. I dragged John there, despite his bad reaction to the posters, because I’d read the book. (My uncle gave it to me as a gift when I was a girl.)

    Since then, however, it has become the classic that EVERYONE quotes. ;-)

  11. These were computer forms with pre-chosen choices. You think that they would put homemaker, even if it is technically the same as Unemployed, just for the politeness value. Everything else is so politically correct nowadays.

    However, as an opponent of political correctness, I feel I shouldn’t complain too much. ;-)

  12. Heh–that was years ago. He does stock market analysis–not the grading companies bit, but the mathematical algorithms and pattern-discovering stuff. Waaaaaaaaaay beyond me, I’m afraid.

  13. I like my new picture, too, except that it shows up so small. But there’s no way to stick all three kids in a icon photo without having them be small. (In case you want to see a somewhat larger version, I posted the photo to my blog here.)

    That cute little one in the middle of the photo was on my chair with me when I was posting the comment that this is in reply to. She hit the keyboard while I was in the middle of typing; all of a sudden my browser sent me back a page or two. I assumed that my post was lost and decided I didn’t care enough to try to re-type it while she was still there. Imagine my surprise when you responded to a half-written post that I thought never posted! :)

    It is hard to imagine Princess Bride as having bombed. Although I don’t even know when it came out. It was a staple movie of my childhood.

    I’ve read the book, too, and I still have a hard time deciding which I like better. They’re just both so good. :)

  14. Now, now, we all know that the correct response to a very mildly irritating thought is to get all up in arms about it, be deeply offended by the lack of “Homemaker” on the list of choices, and sue the company that makes the form for $5 million in damages, not because you’re greedy, but because you know you’re right and you want to make sure no other company ever puts another stay-at-home mom (or person sympathetic to stay-at-home moms) through the deep pain and suffering that you (or some theoretical stay-at-home momes) have gone through. ;)

  15. That’s happened to John and I, too, the weird thought it was gone post thing. ;-)

    My uncle gave me Princess Bride when I was in high school. Back then, it still had an offer to send you additional material that had been taken out of the “original” in the back. I was young enough that I believed in S. Morganstern. I wrote in and got sent something or other. I should still have it, but it isn’t any place accessible. It may be that I lost it during the decades since then.

    It was a beautiful book with an two layered cover. I wish I still had it.

  16. I’m sure that Jesus never meant that to apply to situations where someone *really* offends us. *rolling eyes*

    (That is very tongue-in-cheek; I’m with you on being against political correctness and against the Christ-likeness of being eager to sue people.)

  17. You know, I don’t remember how old I was when I first read the Princess Bride. Maybe I was in college. But I was probably still pretty gullible, because I assumed S. Morganstern was real, too, although I may have been puzzling over it by the end. I know I was puzzling over the existence of two countries in Europe that I never heard of; I think it was when I tried to look them up online to find out where they were that I discovered they (and by association Morganstern) didn’t exist. :)

  18. You know, I thought that there must be some way to twist the Bible to say it would be ok, but I couldn’t think of it. I forgot about that passage; you hit it just right. :)

  19. >I tried to look them up online to find out where they were that I discovered they (and by association Morganstern) didn’t exist

    That’s pretty clever. I just thought that the story was made up, but the guy was real.

    This made me smile, because there was no internet when I was in college…looking things up on line is soooo nice!

  20. Yes. (I’ve always thought that that was a good argument for the Catholic view of having an authority who can give a final say on how to interpret the Bible. Which is not to say that Catholic bishops haven’t done their share of finding what they want in the Bible.)

  21. I took the basic storyline of the Princess Bride as fable, but during one of the parts that were supposedly edited out of Morganstern’s original, Goldman writes that Morganstern goes on for umpteen (120?) pages about Buttercup packing and unpacking for a trip, and that this was Morganstern’s way of commenting on the frivolity of the royalty of Florin and Guilder. So I thought the countries must exist and must have had royalty, and Morganstern was exercising a time-honored tradition of including political commentary in a fiction tale. And then when I tried to find out where they were, I came across an article that was headed up by something like “Goldman’s Imaginary Kingdoms”, which pretty much covered both the countries not being real and Morganstern not being real, since they were Goldman’s kingdoms and not Morganstern’s.

    And yes, looking things up is very convenient! Which reminds me of this. :) And on the topic of comics, I thought you might enjoy this, too. :)

  22. I’m afraid that I can’t agree with you on that. The Catholic Church seems patterned after a medieval court with all of its potential for vices. And I am not willing to bow down before any one but God.

    If it were truly an absolutely accurate reflection of God’s will on earth, there would never have been the rise of dissident churches. And it didn’t start with Luther.

    John Huss, for example. And John Wycliffe.

  23. In what way do you think the Catholic Church is patterned after a medieval court?

    I think the submission required of Catholics to the Church is more akin to the submission required towards the government than to bowing before God. Nor is the Church or the authorities therein “an absolutely accurate reflection of God’s will on earth”; only the formal teachings of the church are protected from error, not the doings or sayings of the Church in general. And certainly it was corruption within it that led to Wycliffe, Luther, etc.

  24. Questions, questions

    How can it not be a different sort of submission (compared to government submission) when God is involved?

    How can any man deny any believer communion with God?

    Why is it necessary to have a priest to intercede with God when it is we who have sinned?

    Why is it desirable to pray to saints?

    Why would we want to put priests in a high social position and then demand celibacy from them?

    Why should the formal teachings of the Church be protected?

    I think the Catholic Church/medieval court analogy is obvious. Start with Pope as Emperor. Move on to Bishops and Cardinals as kings or nobility…priests as knights. Nuns as ladies. Privileges given and tithes taken in accordance with the rules for nobility.
    The Vatican is in essence a court.

    I presume you are inferring that Wycliffe, Luther, etc. were themselves corrupt. Less so I would say, far less so than many of the who held the seats of power though all men are of course corrupt. Otherwise they would have had no followers.

    Rejecting the Catholic Church’s authority is not rejecting God.

  25. Re: Questions, questions

    >I presume you are inferring that Wycliffe, Luther, etc. were themselves corrupt.

    I thought she was saying, yes, there was corruption in the church at times and that this led to Wycliffe and Luther, etc.

  26. Re: Questions, questions

    I love questions like this! :)

    Since my answers are rather long, and this conversation is getting very narrow on my screen, I’ve put up my answers in a post on my blog: see here.

    And yes, I was referring to the corruption of the Catholic church, not the reformers. Sorry about not making that clearer.

  27. Re: Questions, questions

    Yeah, somehow the idea of squeezing over 2.5 regular pages of type into messsages that are by now showing up 2 or 3 inches wide seemed like it might be overkill. ;) But feel free to come over to my blog and join or just read the conversation if you think it’s interesting. :)

Comments are closed.