5 ms·

I think that one of the things I'm continuously disappointed in is that comments like this tend to get more exposure and agreement than the concept that the aut

• 2muchcoffeeman 9y ago
  But you literally cannot discuss something if you don't agree on what's being discussed. People who understand the grandparents definition of emotional labour are going to read the first couple paragraphs of this article, wonder what the author is on about, and quit reading.
• forgottenpass 9y ago
  But that's the term that's commonly applied to it The terminology shapes the way people think about the topic. And people need to understand the issue to fix it. Otherwise you're just shotgun debugging. and correcting what its called isn't fixing the issue No, it doesn't. But presenting the issue poorly isn't helping fix it any faster, either. This entire conversation was largely avoidable had the article communicated better.
• alexandercrohde 9y ago
  Well delivery can be just as important as the message. It sounds like she alienated male-audiences by implying it's a problem with a whole gender instead of implying it's a gender-neutral trait. After all, how does she know who does the cleaning, planning, keeping track of birthdays in my relationship? And I don't think it's fair to dismiss her gender-targeting delivery as a trivial detail such as grammar, she's clearly a professional writer and it's hard to imagine it's accidental. I wonder if she's playing on her audience's pent-up emotions and intentionally stirring controversy to get more-internet attention? (not quite trolling, but a gentler form)
  • ZenoArrow 9y ago
    > "Well delivery can be just as important as the message." Only if the delivery is offensive, otherwise the message is more important. To give an example, I'm a native English speaker, and when I speak with some non-native English speakers they can make some quirky decisions on how they deliver their message. However, if I've understood the underlying message, I'll look past it, and address what they meant. To bring it back to the topic at hand, meta discussions like the one we're having now often start out as a form of deflection. Regardless of the term 'emotional work' (I prefer 'hidden work', you may have a different preference), do you agree that the underlying message of the article is broadly correct? It's not so much about who takes on the 'hidden work', but rather it's about the toll it takes.
    • Sacho 9y ago
      No, because I don't know what the underlying message is - you didn't spell it out, neither did parent, or anyone in this chain. If you unentangle the first example the author gives, she wants to give a task to the man, without explaining how to do it, and then complains that they don't do it properly. But it's not even just that, it's her wrapping this task into a "Mother's Day gift", i.e. forcing the man to do emotional labor to figure out what the woman really wants and how exactly to do it. This is a counter-example to her overall argument, both in her literal words(about emotional labor), and (I'm guessing here) in the underlying meaning of "men should do more of the hidden work"(how do you expect them to do the "hidden work" if you never explain to them that you're doing it, you want to share the responsibility, etc?). If there's a deeper underlying message that I'm missing here, please, I'm interested in knowing about it. But every time I read an article like this, all I can think of is "dysfunctional relationship" and "unreasonable expectations".
      • ZenoArrow 9y ago
        > "If you unentangle the first example the author gives, she wants to give a task to the man, without explaining how to do it, and then complains that they don't do it properly." This is where you're wrong. The wife makes it very clear to the husband how she wants the job done. This is clear because the husband reluctantly acquiesces to her request before deciding to go with a different approach. Once you accept that the wife's instructions were clear, the rest of your argument falls down.
• Sacho 9y ago
  But you didn't make an effort to reword it with the right words. Only you can see your internal thoughts and monologue, all we have to work with is the words we see. Judging by your post, we could reword the article down to this: "Men should take up more household chores". Okay, that's uncontroversial. Digging down into the first example of the article: "What I wanted was for him to ask friends on Facebook for a recommendation, call four or five more services, do the (emotional labor) work I would have done if the job had fallen to me." Wouldn't it be easier to just tell the guy to do this, rather than veil it in a Mother's Day gift and expect him to "do the right thing"? Is it not the partner's responsibility to communicate clearly what they want, why they want it, etc? Why is the assumption that your partner, your loved one in life, is being malicious, is unwilling to do "the emotional labor", rather than just not knowing how to do it? Would it be fair if I asked my partner to "buy me a new PC for my birthday", and then complained that she didn't do research on the manufacturers, didn't make a custom build out of individual specced components, but rather bought me the first google result? What I am continuously disappointed about in these discussions is how the authors, almost always female, seem to treat their partners like shit. I would never think to blame my partner for not being as good as something as me; I would look for a way to teach them, I would take this as a bonding experience for our relationship. This is why I will turn the author's claim around - no, you aren't "fed up", you're nagging - when did you make an honest effort to help your partner do the things you want them to do? How is what you're doing productive?!