This was an excellent sarcastic commentary on Crawford's book. I thought the reviewer took it apart quite nicely, and filed it in the correct category with so many other similar books with the same essential pattern. It's an over the top, generalized, justification for the author's personal decision. After all, he had to use his PhD somehow. His political and personal conflicts are blown up into societal ills so he can justify the waste of money on his education. :-)
I really have just about zero interest in motorcycles, and car repair in general, or really doing anything similar to that for a living. The whole macho, often misogynistic (which was identified by the review, BTW), motorcycle culture just completely turns me off. It's also seems to be a real attraction for the regressive anarchist/libertarian turned authoritarian type, which is a further turn off.
But the corporate culture is the same -- it may not have the same personalities or political culture, but there are distasteful elements we all know about personally (and from numerous Dilbert cartoons :-)). It, also, seems to be an attraction for the naive libertarian cum authoritarian. :-) I don't like it either, really.
But I like what I do, and I like being paid for what I do, so I put up with it because I can figure out way to do so. Perhaps Crawford found something he really likes and an environment which suits him. To generalize that into a condemnation of "non-physical" work seems like an utter long-shot. An attempt to counter the snobbiness of his UC peers with an snoobiness of his own.
My favorite part of the review is the end, where the reviewer delivers the final blow to Crawford' polemic -- what exactly is "useful" about repairing hobby motorcycles compared to certain forms of "office work"? :-)
Comments
This was an excellent sarcastic commentary on Crawford's book. I thought the reviewer took it apart quite nicely, and filed it in the correct category with so many other similar books with the same essential pattern. It's an over the top, generalized, justification for the author's personal decision. After all, he had to use his PhD somehow. His political and personal conflicts are blown up into societal ills so he can justify the waste of money on his education. :-)
I really have just about zero interest in motorcycles, and car repair in general, or really doing anything similar to that for a living. The whole macho, often misogynistic (which was identified by the review, BTW), motorcycle culture just completely turns me off. It's also seems to be a real attraction for the regressive anarchist/libertarian turned authoritarian type, which is a further turn off.
But the corporate culture is the same -- it may not have the same personalities or political culture, but there are distasteful elements we all know about personally (and from numerous Dilbert cartoons :-)). It, also, seems to be an attraction for the naive libertarian cum authoritarian. :-) I don't like it either, really.
But I like what I do, and I like being paid for what I do, so I put up with it because I can figure out way to do so. Perhaps Crawford found something he really likes and an environment which suits him. To generalize that into a condemnation of "non-physical" work seems like an utter long-shot. An attempt to counter the snobbiness of his UC peers with an snoobiness of his own.
My favorite part of the review is the end, where the reviewer delivers the final blow to Crawford' polemic -- what exactly is "useful" about repairing hobby motorcycles compared to certain forms of "office work"? :-)