4 ms·
The author is the snob, by calling intellectual, creative, ivory-tower sort of work "lovable" and all the rest "unlovable." News flash: Some people prefer tak
by dgreensp 13y ago
The author is the snob, by calling intellectual, creative, ivory-tower sort of work "lovable" and all the rest "unlovable." News flash: Some people prefer taking care of babies to running a giant corporation. In fact, if you happen to love babies and have a real knack for it, hanging out with a baby all day and taking home a paycheck is a pretty good gig if you can get it. Similarly, many Uber drivers I talk to are thrilled with their business, which lets them support their family while being their own boss and setting their own hours, and all they have to do is drive a car around town.
I'm not saying diapers are fun (I have a newborn); obviously not every moment of every job is "lovable," and a little grit and mettle is required. I'm also not saying people who "love" their work would do it for free. Some would, but that's way too high a standard for the present conversation. We're talking about individual career choice, not abolishing money in the world.
Yes, "do what you love" is an ideal, an aspiration, but it's a lot less dehumanizing, more practical, and more empowering than whatever it replaces. (Get a college degree, get a job, follow the rules, and you'll retire rich?) If employers have to at least try to make an argument that they provide an environment conducive to personal growth and that you'll have a positive impact on the world by working there, that's great.
How insulting and invalidating is it for the author to assume "workers" must be miserable, even if the workers themselves don't know it? It's the elitist version of "those poor, miserable atheists." Or: "Those poor, miserable programmers who have jobs rather than starting a start-up. They've actually been brainwashed to think they're happy. They say they like programming!" Or: "Those poor stay-at-home moms, squandering their potential at the whim of the patriarchy. They will never know the true fulfillment that comes from a high-powered career."
Be careful what assumptions you bring to the table. You might be the asshole.
- taeric 13y agoYou completely miss what I see as the aim of the article. There are people that want to take care of their kids, as that is what they "love." There are virtually no people that get paid to take care of their kids. That is, society, especially one that promotes "do what you love" does not value raising your kids. And since we are discussing this in the terms of "do what you love [and you will find success]", the whole bloody point is this odd assertion that people that have not been successful are not "doing what they love" and a deconstruction of it. To its conclusion, you seem to merely be violently agreeing with the article.
- dgreensp 13y agoI meant taking care of other people's kids. No one pays you to sit in traffic for yourself, either, or write software for yourself, for that matter. If we lived in some fantasy society with no money, maybe people would take care of their own kids and not other people's, but that's not the question at hand. Also, it's probably false. Watching each other's kids makes a lot of sense with or without money.
- taeric 13y agoThe question at hand is whether "doing what you love" will "leave you satisfied." And, further, that this is "as true for your work life as it is your lovers." Consider that society, by and large, does not put a ton of value in "sitting around taking care of other peoples kids." Nor does it put a lot of value in teaching said kids. Sure you can make enough to survive, but it is a frustrating position that is often rather thankless and not at all acknowledged. Yet, those people should bugger off because if "they truly loved what they were doing they would be satisfied." Right?