This is part 1 on a short series on deserving, what it means, where the idea emerges from, and whether or not it serves us. Part 2 can be read here.
Much of anger, whether at someone's life situation or the state of the world, ultimately boils down to a sense of unfairness, that reality shouldn't be a certain way, and that some people deserve better things, while others deserve worse things. But what exactly does it mean to "deserve" something, where does this idea come from, and to what extent does this serve us?
"Deserve" by and large revolves around the idea that your picture of (social) reality should be right, as opposed to what is in front of your eyes. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, because it can give us the motivation to correct unfair situations, since after all, society isn't set in stone, but is constantly changing due to our involvement.
Feeling like working class people are getting screwed over by the middle and upper classes which only have their own interests in mind evokes a sense of bitterness, because we feel like society could ultimately be a better place to live if their work, and perhaps even outlook on the world, for there are certain things you can only learn through hardship, were more respected and given proper compensation. Some people have so much money that they can simply live off their interests and dividends, and can ride the cycle of accelerated returns, meanwhile some people work hard for most of their life as honest people, and find it harder and harder to make ends meet. That doesn't seem fair.
Not only that, but the tension between classes can only lead to conflict in the long term if the outrageous inequalities we see unfold keep happening, therefore, whatever your vision of "fair" is, if you feel like society is something worth continuing, then you'd want a sustainable basis upon which to move forward, which cannot happen in an environment of class antagonism and constant exploitation.
What about the situations where our sense of "deserve" isn't so useful however? We can think for instance of the men who think that being attractive and having lots of money is enough for them to have a great relationship with a women, and find out that the ones who go for that type of men are, unsurprisingly, shallow women who are only interested in money and are unlikely to be faithful. Such men would then blame women for their problem, making sweeping claims about how all of them are gold diggers, that love is bullshit, and that good men such as them (of course they see themselves as good) "deserve" more than that.
Or we can think of the "nice" guys who believe that fawning over women, being essentially doormats and appealing to all of their needs is supposed to make them go head over heels for such men. Of course it doesn't happen. In this case, there is something repelling about a man who isn't secure enough to feel like he can attract women without lowering himself and making himself "nice" to her. Ultimately, there is a tremendous difference between 'nice' and 'good', and between 'like' and 'love'. How could we love someone who is totally inoffensive, because they are afraid of being themselves? Women tend to prefer assholes because they are not afraid of standing up for who they are and what they value, although if given the choice, a woman would always choose a good man, with a spine and a heart, over the asshole who only has a spine and can be a bastard in so many ways.
In general, women aren't mini-games with a certain attraction 'score' which you can maximize for, and for which enough points get them to sleep with you. Such a gamified view is, quite depressingly, the implicit view of relationships that a fair amount of men have, which is why they talk about their 'body count', or rate women on a scale of 1 to 10, or even use the word 'game' for how they go about attracting women.
In this case, the frustration of what the men "deserve" is because they fundamentally do not see the women as people in and of themselves. They live in an alien virtual reality of their own mind, where doing and saying the right things is "supposed" to lead women to love them, but of course human beings don't work that way. A relationship can look great on paper and completely fall apart in practice, because human beings cannot be reduced to mere ideas, or mere things to dissect and manipulate.
Dating apps reinforce this illusion again and again, through the degrading act of having to reduce yourself to a list of bullet points about yourself, and having to filter through other people based on such reductive lists. The fact that dating is such a horrendous experience for younger people is rather indicative that this dehumanizing process simply kills love, although of course there are many other reasons, but they point to the same direction of atomization and dehumanization.
Love cannot be forced, an idea which is incredibly threatening to the mind, and the ego within which it is embedded. This is why immature men get so irrationally angry when the woman they want to be with does not reciprocate, because in that moment, reality does not obey to their fancy, something which can be quite a novel experience for those who are used to being pampered from ther childhood, and have lived their entire life within institutions which reward them for doing the predictable work they expect from them, or playing video games which behave in exactly the same way every time, appealing to the ego's need for control over reality. 1
This aspect of love, that it cannot be forced, also applies to other things, such as joy, freedom, or a sense of abundance. Of course all of those relate to objective, external realities, because it's difficult to feel free if you are in a prison, but they are not direct consequences of our circumstances. There are people who are incredibly wealthy, materially speaking, and yet feel next to no joy about anything, and find themselves shackled to work which drains them of their time and keeps them trapped in a loop of consumption, using their money to recuperate what they lose from their job. They can try as much as they want to engineer the conditions for joy or freedom, but ultimately what is required is a surrender of their self to something greater.
Not everything in life can be solved through addition, not everything can be forced, sometimes what we are asked to do is surrender to the present moment, and let ourselves dance to the rhythm. A terrifying prospect to the ego who cannot see beyond itself and feels the need to control everything, but ultimately a life with only ego is misery, like having your own soul be hollowed out and being forced to live as a mask.
The example of love is probably the most important one, and it highlights the radical reality that not everything can be forced out, made to obey according to our selfish desires, but some situations are more in the middle.
We can think for instance of the artists who work hard at their craft, but do not have much of an audience, failing to recognize that making quality art is one thing, but putting yourself out there and getting lots of people to see your work is another. Again, should we be satisfied with that as a society? The fact that some of the wealthiest artists are complete hacks and yet have their work in the Tate Modern?
No, of course, but as an artist, you have to meet reality where it is. You cannot just complain about a situation and stubbornly double down on the same strategy again and again, despite its apparent failures. This is what people with learned helplessness do: they hit themselves against the same wall, again and again, hoping for mommy or daddy to notice and help them out. It's a desperate attempt to somehow get attention, instead of taking responsibility for your own life.
There are people who acknowledge the game of the market and decide not to play it. These people do not complain about their lack of material success, because they made a conscious choice of their obscurity, and I can respect that. My point is not that artists "should" play the game of the market and try to appeal to the lowest common denominator, that is a major trap which is sure to compromise your work, and even your own virtues, my point is simply that making good art is one thing, and getting people to take a look at it is another.
Maybe you find that the second game is rigged and doesn't allow outsiders in, which is fair and I would tend to agree with that, but again here we see that our sense of "deserve" can utterly blind us to reality as it is. If you think that people are supposed to magically come across your work because it is so great, you are going to have a bad time because you are not operating within reality. Businesses do not moralize their audience for not liking their products enough, but artists have a tendency to do that. Of course, businesses are almost entirely profit driven, while artists are (or are supposed to) strive for the ineffable, what is beyond mere utility and profit, but still, as an artist you live in the same reality as everyone else, and our world as it is is dependent on getting people to see your work, and like it enough to pay for it in one way or another. You can decide to consciously engage in that, and choose the strategy that works for you and your values, or complain that reality is unfair and find out that barking at a wall doesn't do much to change it.
As usual, this ended up being longer than I expected. You can read part 2 here about the origins of "deserve".
1 Video games operate within a virtual reality where everything results from simplistic causal interactions, therefore, nothing unexpected happens in a video game. And to the extent that it does, it's rather inconsequential because you have no skin in the game. Not so with real life, which can take a direction which completely catches you off guard, and forces you to deal with the consequences. Real life is humbling, video games are comfortable.
Go back to the list of blog posts
Deserve Meritocracy Myths Dating Marketing
2026-02-27