You don’t HAVE to compete, but that doesn’t mean that people who do compete are just victims of the patriarchy, that’s an absurd take
People who do compete without a set goal (e.g. I win this cup, get the prize money and go do X that I want to do) are victims of bullshit. Was it patriarchy that cooked some particular bullshit up or not is not really the biggest question
People who do compete without a set goal (e.g. I win this cup, get the prize money and go do X that I want to do) are victims of bullshit.
That is a wild take.
To borrow from Daniel Pink’s book “Drive” which focuses on motivation theory, external motivators like money or prizes take you nowhere near as far as internal motivators. You are more likely to succeed generally and reach higher levels of performance if your motivation is intrinsic because you give that motivation to yourself and it is self-amplifying. Of course, his bent is more business-meets-academia, but I would struggle to see a world where it doesn’t also apply here. Would you just up and start a new hobby because you won the local competition?
It seems to me that by your logic you go take a karate class so you can get a black belt and then quit? Where’s the satisfaction in that? I don’t think that’s a problem of being a “victim of bullshit”, it’s about the pursuit of excellence for its own sake.
It’s nicer to be desirable by popular standards than not. That’s not the patriarchy, that’s comparative evaluation for mate selection
One, you are trying to substitute whole with a part of it (guess what, not for all people it is nicer). Second, that standpoint may not have arisen out of patriarchy alone, but it is bullshit nonetheless. Have a nice day, go get them tiger
People who do compete without a set goal (e.g. I win this cup, get the prize money and go do X that I want to do) are victims of bullshit. Was it patriarchy that cooked some particular bullshit up or not is not really the biggest question
That is a wild take.
To borrow from Daniel Pink’s book “Drive” which focuses on motivation theory, external motivators like money or prizes take you nowhere near as far as internal motivators. You are more likely to succeed generally and reach higher levels of performance if your motivation is intrinsic because you give that motivation to yourself and it is self-amplifying. Of course, his bent is more business-meets-academia, but I would struggle to see a world where it doesn’t also apply here. Would you just up and start a new hobby because you won the local competition?
It seems to me that by your logic you go take a karate class so you can get a black belt and then quit? Where’s the satisfaction in that? I don’t think that’s a problem of being a “victim of bullshit”, it’s about the pursuit of excellence for its own sake.
You are conflating competing with enjoying doing something
And you can do both.
Are you confused or just dumb?
One, you are trying to substitute whole with a part of it (guess what, not for all people it is nicer). Second, that standpoint may not have arisen out of patriarchy alone, but it is bullshit nonetheless. Have a nice day, go get them tiger