8 ms·

I was a homemaker for a couple of decades. So, I spent a great deal more time physically at home than my husband and the house was where most of my work occurre

by Mz 9y ago

I was a homemaker for a couple of decades. So, I spent a great deal more time physically at home than my husband and the house was where most of my work occurred. When my husband left his dirty clothes on the floor, I could either live with the clutter and step over it or pick up after him. Either choice was still an imposition on me that lowered my quality of life. Furthermore, since doing laundry was one of my responsibilities, him not putting his clothes in the hamper just made my job harder. And, no, it wasn't really acceptable to just not wash his clothes because they weren't in the hamper. We were financially dependent on his job. He had to be presentable. Plus, leaving dirty clothes laying around is a hygiene issue and I have health problems. It would be a little bit like if I went to his office and dumped my laundry on his desk and he would either have to deal with that or work around it -- all day, every single day. We were married about 16 years before he grasped that and stopped leaving his dirty clothes on the floor. When you are in a partnership, the actions of your partner are going to impact you. If they aren't considerate, they will impact you negatively. That is simply reality. Acting like it is not is crazy talk.

didgeoridoo 9y ago
I think it comes down to communication. If my wife said "put your clothes in the hamper because I want you to, and that's where they belong", I might fail to put them there. If she said "put your clothes in the hamper because leaving them on the floor makes my life a lot harder, and also I might get sick", I would never fail to put them there. By framing the issue as something I care about (my wife's health and happiness) and not something I don't care about (whether or not clothes are on the floor), effective communication saves the day. I think the issue with the article is that it demonizes this very communication as a form of unfair, sexist "emotional labor", and therefore (at least to my mind) makes it less likely to occur. EDIT: I'm not trying to imply that your personal situation went one way or the other, or that it was a failing on your part to communicate effectively. I'm just citing my own personal anecdote, because that's all I have.
- Mz 9y ago
  And the author of the article states that communication is not happening effectively in her marriage in part due to gender norms influencing mental models and expectations. And I am telling you that effective communication in my marriage on that one detail took 16 years to finally achieve. Most of the comments here are pretty dismissive and attacking of the article and its author, while acting like she is just an unreasonable bitch. Most participants here are male. The author is female. Women tend to just not get listened to. Getting heard is a huge uphill battle. The effort involved in trying to find some means to get there gets us accused of being nags, etc. That is, in fact, the entire point of the article.
  - didgeoridoo 9y ago
    If that was the point of the article, I think it was spectacularly ineffective at communicating it. Your points here (and above) are a far better and more succinct presentation of the argument than the article itself was.
    - Mz 9y ago
      Thank you. But, from the article: “That’s the point,” I said, now in tears, “I don’t want to have to ask.” The word considerate means to consider how your actions or inactions will impact other people. The vast majority of the ongoing internet discussion of so called emotional labor hinges on the detail that the societal expectation is that women are required to do this. Men are not. And when a man's failure to think before he acts negatively impacts a woman and she complains about it, she gets told she just is failing to communicate, etc. No matter how much effort a woman puts into effectively communicating what she wants, it will never put a stop to the fact that someone else's consistently inconsiderate behavior will consistently negatively impact you. That is the crux of the issue: Women as a group are asking men as a group to think before they act and are being told by men as a group "How dare you! That is an unreasonable expectation!" (In essence.)
      - lm_nop 9y ago
        MZ- woman to woman, thank you for representing.
- ZoFreX 9y ago
  In that one scenario yes, that communication could save the day. I think the article is more about what happens if you multiply that by 100, and one person is disproportionately making that communication happen.
gkya 9y ago
This whole topic mostly boils down to partner choice. If a person is messy, that person is messy. If you are tidy, and not willing to compromise, a messy person is not a good partner for you. It's going to be a pain point, he won't change, you won't change, people don't change. A relationship is a game of compromises. I don't know where are you from, but where I'm from there's a prevalent culture where people think that when they find a possible partner that fits some of their criteria, they can change him/her in the future, when they're married, to make a perfect significant-other; and I feel many commenters here have similar mindsets. This is insidious and toxic, and produces perennially unhappy relationships. If you won't love and accept a person as they are, better don't mess your life up, nor theirs.
- Mz 9y ago
  My ex was not messy. He did things like meticulously organize his book collection and kept his own possessions in pristine condition. He was just a sexist pig. He did not think he was a sexist pig. He was very idealistic and talked about the importance of women's rights. It wasn't apparent I was marrying a troglodyte until well after we married and our first child was on the way. On some level, he wanted a modern two career couple lifestyle. But, when push came to shove, he expected me to pick up after him, cook for him, etc. Trying to get him to see where his words and his actions parted ways was very challenging. A lot of people are like that about various things. This is part of why psychology distinguishes the conscious from the subconscious. People never have perfect information about their partner. There is a lot dating does not reveal. (My ex was not a bad guy. I don't hate him and these issues are wholly unrelated to why we divorced.)
  - gkya 9y ago
    I'm really uncomfortable reading these insults, even if they're deserved. More so because they're in response to a comment of mine (even though I'm not the destination). I'd be so pleased if you removed them. That said, I do understand where you're coming from (both through empathy and some cases I personally know). But you should see that we agree: he probably was a bad choice for you. People always hide their bad parts when it comes to dating, and some are outright dishonest and manipulative, but that does not change the fact that someone was a bad choice. What I wanted to say was that I think that, we can not blame people for being what they are; and thus that we should pick who we would love for who they are, not for what we can sculpt out of them. I was not trying to advice or criticise you or anybody else on relationships and dating, I'm sorry if it came off that way.
cellularmitosis 9y ago
I could either live with the clutter and step over it or pick up after him But those aren't your only choices. If you decided to park your car in the middle of the street, the choices of those around you aren't limited to either put up with it or to clean up after you. Instead, you car gets towed. The key difference between these situations is that one has agreed upon expectations and consequences. People only resort to nagging when they find themselves in a situation where there are no agreed upon expectations and consequences. Further, consequences are extremely effective. You only need to be towed once before you learn to be more careful about where you park. If you agreed upon an expectation/consequence of "clothes left on the floor for more than 2 days will be thrown away", you wouldn't be putting up with clutter for very long. This also helps with directing negative emotions. When someone is nagged, the negative emotion is usually directed at the nagger. But if he broke the rules and had his clothes thrown away, he'd be angry with himself.
- Mz 9y ago
  If you agreed upon an expectation/consequence of "clothes left on the floor for more than 2 days will be thrown away", you wouldn't be putting up with clutter for very long. When you are married, that approach fails on a number of fronts. First, unless you are ultra wealthy, throwing out his clothes will painfully come out of the family budget to replace, especially work clothes, especially if you are a household living on one income -- his -- as we were. Second, replacing them takes time and effort. I was a traditional homemaker, so I handled a lot of his errands. So, I do what? Pick them and put them in the trash can, then go shopping for more, instead of picking them up and putting them in the hamper? Third, it is just bitchy and hostile. This man was my lover. Just being a bitch to him every step of the way was not one of my goals. You don't create a more loving, caring environment by seeing just how much you can piss on your lover before they decide to file for divorce. He did eventually get what I was saying. It just took an unfortunately long time.
  - cellularmitosis 9y ago
    I think I understand your perspective, but I disagree, and this might highlight why emotional labor disparity is such a big problem for so many relationships -- because each side sees things from a different perspective. You're right, adding just one expectation/consequence would be a real problem, because a lot of the fallout would eventually end up in your lap. To make this work, it would have to be part of a larger system. The consequences have to be set up to make things more fair, not less fair. throwing out his clothes will come out of the family budget to replace Alternatively, if the family had a "fun" budget set aside for his and hers, the consequence would be much more effective and fair if it came out of his fun budget -- he was saving up for an Xbox and now he has to wait two more months to afford it because he just blew $100 replacing dress shirts which were thrown away. So, I do what? Pick them and put them in the trash can, then go shopping for more This would definitely be unfair to you -- he needs to be the one to shop for the replacement clothes. This also highlights a similar issue from the article -- many of the burdens were essentially volunteered for, because one party preemptively took it upon themselves to take on the burden, without discussing it or setting up a system ahead of time. For example, the burden of constantly keeping track of which groceries were running low was mentioned. If the chore of shopping for groceries rotated between both partners, this wouldn't be a problem. If its his turn to deal with groceries, OP doesn't need to worry about it that week. Third, it is just bitchy and hostile I strongly disagree here, and I think this is the root of how our perspectives differ. I deal very well with rules and consequences. I don't see that as bitchy and hostile -- that's good communication and honoring an agreement. If I agreed to the rules and the consequences, I have only myself to blame. From my perspective, nagging is the thing which is bitchy. Also, this can cause an unhealthy blame shift for me too -- instead of blaming myself for breaking the rules, I'm tempted to shift blame onto her for perceiving the clutter (leading to the "why is this such a big deal?" argument, which is the worst possible button I could push at that time). You don't create a more loving, caring environment by seeing just how much you can piss on your lover before they decide to file for divorce. Here, I agree, but just from a different perspective. I cannot imagine being in a relationship with the author of the article. Navigating a minefield of poorly defined expectations and responsibilities, with a healthy dose of nagging, and its just a matter of time before I'd reach for the divorce lever.

by Mz 9y ago

didgeoridoo 9y ago

I think it comes down to communication. If my wife said "put your clothes in the hamper because I want you to, and that's where they belong", I might fail to put them there. If she said "put your clothes in the hamper because leaving them on the floor makes my life a lot harder, and also I might get sick", I would never fail to put them there. By framing the issue as something I care about (my wife's health and happiness) and not something I don't care about (whether or not clothes are on the floor), effective communication saves the day. I think the issue with the article is that it demonizes this very communication as a form of unfair, sexist "emotional labor", and therefore (at least to my mind) makes it less likely to occur. EDIT: I'm not trying to imply that your personal situation went one way or the other, or that it was a failing on your part to communicate effectively. I'm just citing my own personal anecdote, because that's all I have.

Mz 9y ago
And the author of the article states that communication is not happening effectively in her marriage in part due to gender norms influencing mental models and expectations. And I am telling you that effective communication in my marriage on that one detail took 16 years to finally achieve. Most of the comments here are pretty dismissive and attacking of the article and its author, while acting like she is just an unreasonable bitch. Most participants here are male. The author is female. Women tend to just not get listened to. Getting heard is a huge uphill battle. The effort involved in trying to find some means to get there gets us accused of being nags, etc. That is, in fact, the entire point of the article.
- didgeoridoo 9y ago
  If that was the point of the article, I think it was spectacularly ineffective at communicating it. Your points here (and above) are a far better and more succinct presentation of the argument than the article itself was.
  - Mz 9y ago
    Thank you. But, from the article: “That’s the point,” I said, now in tears, “I don’t want to have to ask.” The word considerate means to consider how your actions or inactions will impact other people. The vast majority of the ongoing internet discussion of so called emotional labor hinges on the detail that the societal expectation is that women are required to do this. Men are not. And when a man's failure to think before he acts negatively impacts a woman and she complains about it, she gets told she just is failing to communicate, etc. No matter how much effort a woman puts into effectively communicating what she wants, it will never put a stop to the fact that someone else's consistently inconsiderate behavior will consistently negatively impact you. That is the crux of the issue: Women as a group are asking men as a group to think before they act and are being told by men as a group "How dare you! That is an unreasonable expectation!" (In essence.)
    - lm_nop 9y ago
      MZ- woman to woman, thank you for representing.
ZoFreX 9y ago
In that one scenario yes, that communication could save the day. I think the article is more about what happens if you multiply that by 100, and one person is disproportionately making that communication happen.

gkya 9y ago

This whole topic mostly boils down to partner choice. If a person is messy, that person is messy. If you are tidy, and not willing to compromise, a messy person is not a good partner for you. It's going to be a pain point, he won't change, you won't change, people don't change. A relationship is a game of compromises. I don't know where are you from, but where I'm from there's a prevalent culture where people think that when they find a possible partner that fits some of their criteria, they can change him/her in the future, when they're married, to make a perfect significant-other; and I feel many commenters here have similar mindsets. This is insidious and toxic, and produces perennially unhappy relationships. If you won't love and accept a person as they are, better don't mess your life up, nor theirs.

Mz 9y ago
My ex was not messy. He did things like meticulously organize his book collection and kept his own possessions in pristine condition. He was just a sexist pig. He did not think he was a sexist pig. He was very idealistic and talked about the importance of women's rights. It wasn't apparent I was marrying a troglodyte until well after we married and our first child was on the way. On some level, he wanted a modern two career couple lifestyle. But, when push came to shove, he expected me to pick up after him, cook for him, etc. Trying to get him to see where his words and his actions parted ways was very challenging. A lot of people are like that about various things. This is part of why psychology distinguishes the conscious from the subconscious. People never have perfect information about their partner. There is a lot dating does not reveal. (My ex was not a bad guy. I don't hate him and these issues are wholly unrelated to why we divorced.)
- gkya 9y ago
  I'm really uncomfortable reading these insults, even if they're deserved. More so because they're in response to a comment of mine (even though I'm not the destination). I'd be so pleased if you removed them. That said, I do understand where you're coming from (both through empathy and some cases I personally know). But you should see that we agree: he probably was a bad choice for you. People always hide their bad parts when it comes to dating, and some are outright dishonest and manipulative, but that does not change the fact that someone was a bad choice. What I wanted to say was that I think that, we can not blame people for being what they are; and thus that we should pick who we would love for who they are, not for what we can sculpt out of them. I was not trying to advice or criticise you or anybody else on relationships and dating, I'm sorry if it came off that way.

cellularmitosis 9y ago

I could either live with the clutter and step over it or pick up after him But those aren't your only choices. If you decided to park your car in the middle of the street, the choices of those around you aren't limited to either put up with it or to clean up after you. Instead, you car gets towed. The key difference between these situations is that one has agreed upon expectations and consequences. People only resort to nagging when they find themselves in a situation where there are no agreed upon expectations and consequences. Further, consequences are extremely effective. You only need to be towed once before you learn to be more careful about where you park. If you agreed upon an expectation/consequence of "clothes left on the floor for more than 2 days will be thrown away", you wouldn't be putting up with clutter for very long. This also helps with directing negative emotions. When someone is nagged, the negative emotion is usually directed at the nagger. But if he broke the rules and had his clothes thrown away, he'd be angry with himself.

Mz 9y ago
If you agreed upon an expectation/consequence of "clothes left on the floor for more than 2 days will be thrown away", you wouldn't be putting up with clutter for very long. When you are married, that approach fails on a number of fronts. First, unless you are ultra wealthy, throwing out his clothes will painfully come out of the family budget to replace, especially work clothes, especially if you are a household living on one income -- his -- as we were. Second, replacing them takes time and effort. I was a traditional homemaker, so I handled a lot of his errands. So, I do what? Pick them and put them in the trash can, then go shopping for more, instead of picking them up and putting them in the hamper? Third, it is just bitchy and hostile. This man was my lover. Just being a bitch to him every step of the way was not one of my goals. You don't create a more loving, caring environment by seeing just how much you can piss on your lover before they decide to file for divorce. He did eventually get what I was saying. It just took an unfortunately long time.
- cellularmitosis 9y ago
  I think I understand your perspective, but I disagree, and this might highlight why emotional labor disparity is such a big problem for so many relationships -- because each side sees things from a different perspective. You're right, adding just one expectation/consequence would be a real problem, because a lot of the fallout would eventually end up in your lap. To make this work, it would have to be part of a larger system. The consequences have to be set up to make things more fair, not less fair. throwing out his clothes will come out of the family budget to replace Alternatively, if the family had a "fun" budget set aside for his and hers, the consequence would be much more effective and fair if it came out of his fun budget -- he was saving up for an Xbox and now he has to wait two more months to afford it because he just blew $100 replacing dress shirts which were thrown away. So, I do what? Pick them and put them in the trash can, then go shopping for more This would definitely be unfair to you -- he needs to be the one to shop for the replacement clothes. This also highlights a similar issue from the article -- many of the burdens were essentially volunteered for, because one party preemptively took it upon themselves to take on the burden, without discussing it or setting up a system ahead of time. For example, the burden of constantly keeping track of which groceries were running low was mentioned. If the chore of shopping for groceries rotated between both partners, this wouldn't be a problem. If its his turn to deal with groceries, OP doesn't need to worry about it that week. Third, it is just bitchy and hostile I strongly disagree here, and I think this is the root of how our perspectives differ. I deal very well with rules and consequences. I don't see that as bitchy and hostile -- that's good communication and honoring an agreement. If I agreed to the rules and the consequences, I have only myself to blame. From my perspective, nagging is the thing which is bitchy. Also, this can cause an unhealthy blame shift for me too -- instead of blaming myself for breaking the rules, I'm tempted to shift blame onto her for perceiving the clutter (leading to the "why is this such a big deal?" argument, which is the worst possible button I could push at that time). You don't create a more loving, caring environment by seeing just how much you can piss on your lover before they decide to file for divorce. Here, I agree, but just from a different perspective. I cannot imagine being in a relationship with the author of the article. Navigating a minefield of poorly defined expectations and responsibilities, with a healthy dose of nagging, and its just a matter of time before I'd reach for the divorce lever.