If that’s their way of enjoying things, then what’s so bad about it? They presumably dislike a lot of the hobbies you enjoy, they’re not out there to ‘mentrify’ them. (Why this gendered insulting is okay when it’s aimed against men, I don’t know.)
Yet you can say the exact same thing about cooperation. I would argue that cooperation is atleast as critical an ingredient here as competition. Indeed, the infrastructure that allows me to view the comment you posted depends on open standards, open source software and generally could not have existed without groups of people working together to accomplish goals.
I would personally say that cooperation, freedom and passion are more important than competition, greed and ego in terms of enabling the accomplishments of our society.
That is not to say that competition has no role to play, but it is part of a melange of human dynamics that are necessary. Specifically, competition works best between between groups of freely cooperating individuals, especially when those groups can periodically set aside that competition to cooperatively further the goals of their mutual passions and dreams.
These things aren't mutually exclusive. You can compete as a team and with the help of friends.
Nothing rong, per se, but there are limits to what individuals can do on their own. When you eliminate groups of cooperating individuals, there are much lower limits to what can be accomplished. Specifically when taking about the achievements of society, most enterprises require the efforts of cooperating groups. I feel like this is blatantly evident and doesn't require explanation.
> It's still coeperation on a societal scale, e.g competing as an individual in a competition is still co-operating with the competition itself.
I think you are mangling the definition of 'cooperation" here. It certainly is possible to compete and cooperate simultaneously (often by strictly limiting the scope of the competition and by sharing knowledge), but that doesn't mean that competing is cooperation. Even so, within that "societal scale" competition, the best results are achieved by groups that operate with either no or greatly limited internal competition.
If you take part in a competition, you are cooperating with its organisers in making the event happen.
> there are much lower limits to what can be accomplished
We are talking about small achievments though, e.g opening a brewery.
If I read a book about that, am I cooperating with its author? If not, plenty is possible without cooperation; If so, lots can be achieved via indirect cooperation.
Ego isn't going away any time soon, and you will never know anyone who has renounced their ego, because only ego wants you to share that.
Competition can be a lot of fun, so that's ok. As long as it's not driven by jealousy or envy.
Greed - we all have psychological impulses that make us think that one thing is not enough and we need more of it. Most of us do that now through our careers. Including me, I'm still pushing for the bigger paycheck.
Greed and ego can easily be symptomatic of unstoppable freedom and passion. We sometimes call that perfectionism and it's a curse.
All in all, it's not as simple as it looks unless your ego tells you that it's actually that simple for you. In which case...
Sure, and most do, across genders.
> If that’s their way of enjoying things, then what’s so bad about it?
Every act tends to have social/economic implications that affect how others participate, even if unintentional. Walk into a bar now, and often eight out of the ten taps are high IBU IPAs. Fewer choices for people that aren't into the hops competition.
Some people will be rude to others who don't want to play the competitive game.
> (Why this gendered insulting is okay when it’s aimed against men, I don’t know.)
Men collectively have enough power to handle a funny critical term without risk of being marginalized.
> Men collectively have enough power to handle a funny critical term without risk of being marginalized.
What does men collectively have enough power even mean? It's not like all the men in the world work together to decide the fate of all the poor, powerless women. Where is black men's power? Where is the homeless white men's power? And why should risk of being marginalized factor into it? Insulting a very large fraction of humanity for the actions of a small subset shouldn't be OK no matter who it is. Would insulting all Muslims for the actions of a few fringe sects be OK? I mean, they should collectively have enough power to handle it, they even run whole countries!
Decry the actions of bros all you want, but why expand that to saying all men do this as "mentrification" implies? Doing so is both inaccurate and hurtful to many people for no reason other than feeling smug that some man (who most likely isn't very privileged) finally got their comeuppance.
And not only is this unfair, it’s silly. Brewing has always been an almost exclusively male hobby, the rise of the hop nerd is nothing to do with sex at all, contrary to what the word might imply.
Evidences:
At quilting shows, numeric boasting is also common - number of hours, number of pieces, number of spools of thread, I've even seen a count of the number of broken quilting needles.
Carbon fiber knitting needles are a thing. I own some. The packaging talks about how carbon fiber is also used in aerospace. (In case, I dunno, you need to get those puppies moving through the air really fast, maybe?)
My grandmother's approach to baking Christmas cookies.
(That said, MENTRIFICATION is a hilarious term, I chuckled out loud, and I will be using it in the future, with only moderate fear that doing so will emasculate me or invert the patriarchy, and minor hope that people who like to complain about political correctness will be offended on political grounds.)
Mentrification is just a clever play on words.
The actual observation definitely rings true for me. I remember as a middle schooler not wanting to admit i was learning guitar until i was ’good enough’.
I think this is definitely tied to identity. Something that you can work at and see demonstrable progress is comforting in a way, but i can see how it easily leads to passion as competition.
But mostly it’s a pun.
Even to the extent this is true, it’s a poisonous attitude, responsible for a lot of acrimony in society today, and I urge you to reconsider it.
The attitude of “you can punch up but not down” leads to a lot more punching, especially when members of the group you’ve declared as “up” start getting sick of being punched and decide to punch back.
You can't 'hate on hate' without becoming the hater you hated.