Emotional Labor - a good read for men AND women

[Anonymous]

I wish there was a way to "like" comments because so many of these are spot on and I want to say "yay! yes!"

And I'm finding this thread to be very interesting - all the different sides and the various tangents it has branched off into.

I am genuinely curious though regarding the men who have responded negatively to this idea about emotional labor - how many of you are married? Because if you are I am wondering does this mean that you already have an equal distribution of all labor in your household and both you and you spouse are happy and content with your arrangement so this all just seems foreign and a waste of time to you? (If so then kudos!) Or are you married, and going "this is all bullshit" and you've got a wife at home who's so beaten down and exhausted, and you're just unwilling to see the signs? I'd be very curious to hear her opinion on the subject - brilliant idea - ask your wife to read this! See if she agrees with you! (I'm being serious, not being snarky.)

What I got from all of this is that Emotional Labor IS a thing, it IS important in our society*, and it is something that should be shared, not automatically assigned to the female in a relationship.

(* the whole "well just stop doing that if its too much" isn't a solution. To anything.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not the PP to whom you respond, but in game theory, the model is more generally applicable in terms of "cooperating" or "defecting". In this way the prisoner's dilemma is more generally applicable to a wide range of situations beyond the plea deal dilemma described in the original prisoner's dilemma. If you think about it, parenting is a bit like a prisoner's dilemma in terms of decisions to cooperate or defect.........

I understand, but I think if you view the choice of possible responses to either cooperating or defecting (versus sitting on your hands or just doing the level that suits you) then you are giving into a false dilemma. In this case it implies you either "cooperate" (do what your spouse wants) or "sabotage" (undermine what they want)...and even that is, at best, a tortured fit of the model to the circumstances. Nevermind that the reward structures are completely wrong as well. There are plenty of alternative options here: clean, but maybe not as much as your spouse wants. Be willing to accompany spouse (and children) to church, but don't take the responsibility for getting the kids ready; you could agree that, despite being an atheist yourself, you're willing to compromise and allow the children to attend Church..see, very quickly the artificial constraints fall away.

There are certainly situations where there are mutually exclusive choices to be made about parenting, but how much to act as go-between for the ILs and DH isn't one of them; neither is how much tidying/cleaning you do. None of these "emotional labor" examples are mutually exclusive choices.

No gaming model is perfect. But, consider a new game invented after Prisoner's Dilemma. The new game is called, "Feed the Baby". Parent A and Parent B have a baby that must be fed regularly. Feeding the baby takes 1 parental unit of labor. Parent A and Parent B can cooperate to feed the baby and it would cost each parent 1/2 a unit of parental labor. Parent A or B can refuse to feed the baby, in which case the other parent might decide to feed the baby anyway or the other parent might not decide to feed the baby. If one parent decides to defects/refuses to feed the baby, and the other parent cooperates/feeds the baby, it costs the feeding parent 1 unit of parental labor and it costs the defecting parent nothing in terms of labor. If both parents decide to refuse/defect, then the baby doesn't get fed and the both parents suffer the worst outcome -- baby dies of hunger.

In Game theory, this is game is called "chicken". The reward structures of Chicken match the reward structures of babies, which amount to "whoever caves in first, or can tolerate the least, loses".

Anonymous wrote:Now, in a rational world, each parent looks to minimize their input -- so each parent is more motivated to choose to refuse/defect because it costs them the least amount of labor and the baby dies, even though both parents could have chosen to cooperate for a slightly higher cost per parent in terms of labor and a much better outcome (no dead baby).

In the real world, not all parents are sociopaths, also known as "Rational Econs" (yes, in the skewed sample of "fiscal conservatives", aka libertarians, everyone is 100% selfish and sociopathic, but that's not reality), also known as assholes.

In an ideal world, which the real world approaches much more closely than Libertarian Wall St, the parents do not look to minimize their input into their own child, and step up to the responsibility as adults. If your partner/spouse is unduly selfish (greedy sociopathic asshole), then I'm sorry about that - you should've sussed it out better before starting a business partnership with them.

I am the proud owner of a 7 month old baby, and I am very very familiar with the many variants of "Chicken" - aka, change the diaper, bathe the baby, feed the baby, get up in the middle of the night with the baby. These are all variants on chicken.

I also agree that if you cave in to an asshole, it will reinforce their assholery, and they will know and exploit your "weakness". The lesson is to never cave into an asshole.

And again, I go back to: your marriage and parenting are not a game. You do not have to crash into the other person and starve/kill the baby in order to stand your ground. You can take a number of other options:

- get up in the middle of the night, get the baby, wake up the asshole and hand them the baby and a diaper
- get up in the middle of the night, get the baby, wake up the asshole and hand them a bottle.

Often they are - like all those people who had teenage infatuations with the writing of Ayn Rand - simply immature and ignorant and not really all that greedy or lacking empathy, and after they are shown bluntly (as teenagers often need, a little reality or shock therapy, see "woken up in the middle of the night"), they come around and realize what they are subjecting their partner to and what their responsibilities are. In short: they grow up. If not, there is always another option:

- divorce the asshole

A member of my extended family is doing this for exactly this reason right now.

Anyway, you get the idea...about why relationships are not games or game theory.

PP who first mentioned the 'Prisoners dilemma' and I think you are missing a couple key points / making some faulty assumptions. Namely:
1) that people behave rationally all the time. Simply not true. Human psychology messes with our ability to behave rationally all the time.
2) that the emotional labor market has the kind of transparency that allows for truly rational behavior. I think the core point about emotional labor is that it doesn't. One reason for this is likely that society has externalized the cost of this labor for (most) men to the point that they honestly don't see it.
3) that there is no cost involved with being the one to teach others how to better perform emotional labor.

Another point made on the MetaFilter thread that I agree with is that this doesn't need to be a man against woman issue, but rather one where we acknowledge that the existing societal status quo harms both parties. Male reliance on their wives to form/maintain social connections puts an unfair burden on the wives, true, but it can also harm the man. As studies have shown widowed men often do poorly in part because of the loss of this function, and widowed men who can do this emotional labor for themselves fare better when suddenly solo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sheesh, PP. What the other PP said was:

I want my daughter to recognize when she's doing it and make conscious decisions about why she's doing it and whether and in what way she is getting compensation. I want my son to grow up both being able to contribute emotional labor to a relationship and to not expect his mate to give it without some kind of compensation or mutuality.

You seem to be saying that PP should ignore the topic of emotional labor altogether and not teach it at all, and rather focus on teaching independence and smarts. But I think it's better to teach both kids about emotional labor so they're prepared for what they will face. Why not teach them everything?

Nobody taught you about emotional labor, as you say, and frankly you don't seem to have much empathy for people who are performing it for others without getting back in kind. This is, I think, a good reason for PP to be teaching both her kids about emotional labor and unfair burdens. It's better to know than not to know, better to be prepared and therefore better able to pick the right spouse than be surprised about things after you're married. Lots of women in this thread and the MetaFilter thread were saying that they were NOT prepared for how the burdens of emotional labor would fall after their marriage and particularly after their kids. You may have picked your spouse very wisely, or you may also have gotten lucky.

Well, my DH rocks so it may be a bit of luck

We have a 9 year old DS and a 6 year old DD and we teach and model the exact same thing to both of them. They should be nice to others and help out where they can even if it is a personal inconvenience at times. They are both responsible for themselves and they shouldn't expect anyone to wait on them (be financially independent). They should know what they want in life and clearly articulate it and work toward that goal (having a goal isn't enough, what's their plan...). Most importantly, they are responsible for their own happiness and establishing their own limits!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Honestly, your message made me cringe. Please don't teach your daughter to walk around with a chip on her shoulder regarding anything remotely related to unpaid labor. Please teach her to be financially independent, strong and confident. With that skill set she will have the confidence to state what she needs/wants, be able to clearly define her expectations in a relationship, and wait to get in a long-term committed relationship until she is confident it is the right person (or never get in a long-term relationship). It makes for a much more positive outlook on life than what you are currently teaching her.

Ah, yes, female children should not be taught to set and enforce boundaries or consider reciprocity...... They should just find the "right person". Teaching my child to recognize when she is performing unpaid labor and consider if and why it is valuable to her and whether it is being done as part of a reciprocal benefit IS teaching her to "clearly define her expectations in a relationship."

I agree with the first PP. Teaching a child to demand payment for things nobody asks her to do is setting her up for a lot of heartache. Wouldn't it make more sense to teach her to put things in perspective and realize that Christmas postcards is not the hill she should die on?

Yeah, women currently make, like, sixty cents on the dollar to men, so clearly teaching them about all the free shit women are often socialized to do that they shouldn't be doing for free that btw translates into the work arena for many women is just bananas.

You sound very confused. You don't know any women who out-earn men?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish there was a way to "like" comments because so many of these are spot on and I want to say "yay! yes!"

And I'm finding this thread to be very interesting - all the different sides and the various tangents it has branched off into.

I am genuinely curious though regarding the men who have responded negatively to this idea about emotional labor - how many of you are married? Because if you are I am wondering does this mean that you already have an equal distribution of all labor in your household and both you and you spouse are happy and content with your arrangement so this all just seems foreign and a waste of time to you? (If so then kudos!) Or are you married, and going "this is all bullshit" and you've got a wife at home who's so beaten down and exhausted, and you're just unwilling to see the signs? I'd be very curious to hear her opinion on the subject - brilliant idea - ask your wife to read this! See if she agrees with you! (I'm being serious, not being snarky.)

What I got from all of this is that Emotional Labor IS a thing, it IS important in our society*, and it is something that should be shared, not automatically assigned to the female in a relationship.

(* the whole "well just stop doing that if its too much" isn't a solution. To anything.)

Well, I'm actually one of the wives in the "this is all bullshit" camp. I completely agree with the poster who said that many wives practically choose to be beaten down and exhausted, because they pursue the goals nobody else sees as vitally important.

I for one do not care to maintain DH's relationships. Why the heck would I? How would I? He is an adult; he can and does fend for himself when it comes to family. As far as dividing chores, I'm sorry, grown-ups are expected to be able to agree on this as well. Without claims of martyrdom, pent-up resentment, and all that other nonsense. DH was doing dishes late last night, because going to bed while the sink is dirty bothers him. If it bothers him, he is welcome to clean it. If somebody's DH is incapable of understanding this, congratulations. You married an immature idiot. If you are unable to understand that 50 Christmas cards nobody wants won't get you a freaking medal... Well, you do the math

[Anonymous]

This is an interesting thread. I don't think this has to do with men vs women-- it's just we're still culturally trying to get ourselves out of that mindset. My DH and his dad do more emotional labor than than me or his mom (his parents are not married). There was a hard press initially after our wedding though for me to do the more traditional female labor-- which was never discussed pre-marriage. I guess I'm lucky that I'm inherently anti social and have long been comfortable disappointing people. I said hell no to all suggestions/demands/PA remarks that I should be doing more. And after that no one has brought it up at all. DH talks to his family, buys gifts for his family, arranges visits for his family. And all is fine.
So while I do think there is still an expectation for wives to take on these responsibilities, women need to women up Nd just say no.

That said, I'm from a very liberal place/family and my personality is obtuse, so I can totally see how women from other families with more caring personalities find themselves in this situation. And I still have internal arguments with myself over whether I should do more emotional labor for the sake of my marriage-- my DH would certainly appreciate it, but would it then become an expectation that I couldn't
possibly keep up with?

Also I wonder how much we think we are teaching our kids. My mom is the quintessential emotional labor wife. She was a SAHM and still a SAHW who does everything for all the extended family and friends. And she created me-- who does nothing. Will my daughters then compensate by being more like her because they see what is lacking in my relationships? Or is it just personality driven?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting thread. I don't think this has to do with men vs women-- it's just we're still culturally trying to get ourselves out of that mindset. My DH and his dad do more emotional labor than than me or his mom (his parents are not married). There was a hard press initially after our wedding though for me to do the more traditional female labor-- which was never discussed pre-marriage. I guess I'm lucky that I'm inherently anti social and have long been comfortable disappointing people. I said hell no to all suggestions/demands/PA remarks that I should be doing more. And after that no one has brought it up at all. DH talks to his family, buys gifts for his family, arranges visits for his family. And all is fine.
So while I do think there is still an expectation for wives to take on these responsibilities, women need to women up Nd just say no.

That said, I'm from a very liberal place/family and my personality is obtuse, so I can totally see how women from other families with more caring personalities find themselves in this situation. And I still have internal arguments with myself over whether I should do more emotional labor for the sake of my marriage-- my DH would certainly appreciate it, but would it then become an expectation that I couldn't
possibly keep up with?

Also I wonder how much we think we are teaching our kids. My mom is the quintessential emotional labor wife. She was a SAHM and still a SAHW who does everything for all the extended family and friends. And she created me-- who does nothing. Will my daughters then compensate by being more like her because they see what is lacking in my relationships? Or is it just personality driven?

++1 I'm in this exact camp - DH does most EL - used to ask me to call my folks & sibs, do family gatherings etc, but soon it became clear I really don't care, especially I don't care if relatives I hardly know like or hate me. This was more so since my parents and sisters earlier did horrible things to break us up coz they disapprove of DH.... I actually happily used this soured relationship to shake off lots of unwanted social obligations and stresses, and life is sweet this way.

Same with housework, errands etc. We don't have kids together yet, but we've discussed this a lot... I have kids from a prior marriage who live with their father, and he's observed how I repeatedly refuse to be emotionally manipulated as a mother, and the dad just has had to do his part of EL or it remains undone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Honestly, your message made me cringe. Please don't teach your daughter to walk around with a chip on her shoulder regarding anything remotely related to unpaid labor. Please teach her to be financially independent, strong and confident. With that skill set she will have the confidence to state what she needs/wants, be able to clearly define her expectations in a relationship, and wait to get in a long-term committed relationship until she is confident it is the right person (or never get in a long-term relationship). It makes for a much more positive outlook on life than what you are currently teaching her.

Ah, yes, female children should not be taught to set and enforce boundaries or consider reciprocity...... They should just find the "right person". Teaching my child to recognize when she is performing unpaid labor and consider if and why it is valuable to her and whether it is being done as part of a reciprocal benefit IS teaching her to "clearly define her expectations in a relationship."

I agree with the first PP. Teaching a child to demand payment for things nobody asks her to do is setting her up for a lot of heartache. Wouldn't it make more sense to teach her to put things in perspective and realize that Christmas postcards is not the hill she should die on?

Yeah, women currently make, like, sixty cents on the dollar to men, so clearly teaching them about all the free shit women are often socialized to do that they shouldn't be doing for free that btw translates into the work arena for many women is just bananas.

You sound very confused. You don't know any women who out-earn men?

Have you been living under a rock? Women who do the same job as men regularly make less money than men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Well, I'm actually one of the wives in the "this is all bullshit" camp. I completely agree with the poster who said that many wives practically choose to be beaten down and exhausted, because they pursue the goals nobody else sees as vitally important.

lol, I'm not sure anybody chooses to be in a relationship where they are (emotionally) beaten down and exhausted. It sort of just happens gradually over time. And then one day you wake up and *bam* wonder "how the hell did things get like this?"

If there is a choice in the matter it's the wife putting her needs second to those of the children - I certainly have, for sure when they were smaller. Now that they are older and more self sufficient they can handle more things on their own.

(But it may not be a choice. It could be a "honey, you have to get up with the baby, i have an important meeting tomorrow and need my sleep" sorta thing that just escalates.)

I never set out for my marriage to be that way, and at the start it did seem like an equal arrangement. But things came up over the years where the DH needs were the priority, and I let mine take a backseat for the good of the marriage. For example: He went back to school while working full time with the plan being that the advanced degree would help our future financial situation, so studying and schoolwork became the priority. Then he graduated, and finding a new job was the priority. Then once the new job was landed he had to put all his energies into making sure he was doing well and progressing... and then he's promoted and now it's even more hours at the office...

There were other things as well that took us from being equal partners to me doing 100% of childcare and household chores (and everything in between) while also working a full time job. For our future financial security and (for what I thought was) to help the DH during different stressful times... I put my needs behind his - always with the thought that once we got over that hurdle (whatever it may be) then things would even again and it would be my turn to have my needs taken priority.

The problem is that there is ALWAYS something else that comes up, another new hurdle, some other reason that DH needs must come first. It never ends. There is no "my turn".

I never intended it to get this way - blame it on my upbringing, my personality type, whatever you want - if you had told me 20 years ago I'd be in the situation I am now I'd say you were crazy. So I take responsibility in my part of all this. I thought I was doing the right thing. I wasn't. I thought I was being the supportive wife behind the man. I thought I was helping things. But in the end I"m left with a husband that expects everything to just automatically be taken care of, me feeling unappreciated and exhausted, and our marriage splitting up.

[Anonymous]

PP, how does your DH's work and all that comes with it are his needs? Aren't those your family needs? Including yours and your children's? I'm willing to be DH would rather be independently wealthy and chill on the beach than slave away at the office. But he does good work, because his family needs it, and its his job. It does sound like he pulls his part of the weight.

[Anonymous]

We both have fulltime jobs - I've always worked - the difference is that his job is stressful so he needs to unwind when he gets home which prevents him from doing anything around the house other than sitting in front of the tv with a drink. The thing is - my job is equally if not more stressful at times (i'm a director at an agency so clients and deadlines) and I don't get to do that. When he was unemployed for 9 months and I was the sole breadwinner he was too depressed to do anything around the house because searching for a job was stressful. No mention how maybe things were stressful for me too.

When he wanted to go back to school we went into major debt with the hopefully return being a financial stable career. When I wanted to go back to school for the same reason we didn't suddenly couldn't find the funds, and this time it didn't make sense for us to go into debt in order to further *my* career.

He went back to school while working full time meaning he was gone from the house from 9 am until 9pm - he only saw the kids on the weekend because we were gone in the morning before he woke up, and they were asleep when he got home. So 100% my responsibility. After a year of this he quit his job to just go to school (still only at night) but there was no change in his contribution with the kids or around the house. Years later I was up for a promotion but it would require me to work different hours - which meant he'd have to be responsible for the kids in the evening until I got home. I had to turn down the promotion because he wouldn't pick up the kids from their after school program at 6 every night.

[Anonymous]

pp i feel tired just reading that! wish we could meet for martinis. i am about to run away for the night from my responsibilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP who first mentioned the 'Prisoners dilemma' and I think you are missing a couple key points / making some faulty assumptions.

You are that PP? Well, here's the thing, if you read all my responses, I've consistently said that the economic model implied by the "emotional labor" argument is flawed. All I've ever said about "the prisoner's dilemma" is that it's the wrong game theory model to apply. I frankly think the whole idea of trying to shoehorn emotional relationship into an economic model is ridiculous. You might - with a slight stretch - made the simple argument that relationships are emotionally transactional, as in, "if you don't get from your partner|relationship what you want or expect, then you should find another partner|relationship". Ie, if this deal doesn't do it for you, go find a better one that does (if you can).

I've also never made a single one of these assumptions - most of all the first:

Anonymous wrote: Namely:
1) that people behave rationally all the time. Simply not true. Human psychology messes with our ability to behave rationally all the time.
2) that the emotional labor market has the kind of transparency that allows for truly rational behavior. I think the core point about emotional labor is that it doesn't. One reason for this is likely that society has externalized the cost of this labor for (most) men to the point that they honestly don't see it.
3) that there is no cost involved with being the one to teach others how to better perform emotional labor.

First of all: you can't have it both ways. You can't say "this is an economic marketplace" and then turn around say say "lacks transparency" and "lacks rationality". Take your pick.

Honestly, I'm basically calling BS on both the economic and game theory models, and frankly the whole idea of "Emotional Labor" - nobody else is responsible for your feelings but you. You can choose to not be deeply invested. Your husband can't force you to care whether or not his 2nd cousin gets a birthday card, or if you "support" his Mom when she complains about her sciatica or arthritis. He just can't.

You may CHOOSE to care deeply about these things, but that's you and your choice: you are the BUYER of the Emotional Labor (as well as the provider). You may wish he cared more - which is actually what this whole silly notion of "Emotional Labor" is all about - creating an obligation on him that he care, and that he "pay" you for doing the Emotional Work that is important to him but that he doesn't want to do. It's farcical.

In fact, if you wanted to make a market out of it, basically what you'd discover is that nobody but you is buying (paying for) the product "Emotional Labor" that you are producing.

Sure children need nurturing, and emotionally distant fathers suck, but a mother doing "Emotional Labor" doesn't make up for the father - the only people who get a payoff from that "Emotional Labor" are the mother and the child, in the form of their good relationship. That whole dynamic exists on it's own, completely independent of the father. If the father does a lot of "Emotional Labor" too, it doesn't lessen the need for the mother. Even if the mother is very nurturing and great, if the father is distant, the father-child relationship will suffer.

If the wife does "Emotional Labor" with her in-laws, her husband's relationship with them does not improve - he does not get credit...his family says "oh, $wife is great, but brother still is kind of lame". You are the only beneficiary of the "Emotional Labor" you perform and even then, you may get little to no benefit if the person towards whom the labor is directed doesn't care. This is called "not that into you".

Anonymous wrote:Another point made on the MetaFilter thread that I agree with is that this doesn't need to be a man against woman issue, but rather one where we acknowledge that the existing societal status quo harms both parties. Male reliance on their wives to form/maintain social connections puts an unfair burden on the wives, true, but it can also harm the man. As studies have shown widowed men often do poorly in part because of the loss of this function, and widowed men who can do this emotional labor for themselves fare better when suddenly solo.

There are plenty of men with great social skills and plenty of aspie women with lousy social skills. I know at least as many bitchy old crones who are generally bitter, hateful, angry people as I do grouchy old men. This is the most ridiculous trope put forward yet.

What this seems to amount to, to me, is a lot of unhappy-with-their-choice-of-partner women playing the martyr rather than taking some responsibility for making a poor choice (and doing something about it). It is some of the most broken and mentally unhealthy thinking I believe I've seen trotted out in a few years of reading DCUM. My original analogy to this "Emotional Labor" whinge was the Nice Guys (TM) whine about how they didn't get the payout (sex) from women they took to dinner. This is the female "nice guy" whining that the guy just doesn't care enough even though she's really into him and has done a lot of "Emotional Labor" for him. Grow up.

[Anonymous]

I don't like the compensation aspect of the conversation because it frames the dialogue as "what's in it for me" or sets up a "tit for tat" approach to marriage and parenting---both of which are unhealthy.

My two cents: aim for an egalatarian marriage, but don't keep score. Don't be lazy; if something needs to be done, then do it. Be a kind partner. Lastly, don't expect or demand praise from your partner (I shouldn't have to thank my husband for doing the laundry).

This isn't rocket science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We both have fulltime jobs - I've always worked - the difference is that his job is stressful so he needs to unwind when he gets home which prevents him from doing anything around the house other than sitting in front of the tv with a drink. The thing is - my job is equally if not more stressful at times (i'm a director at an agency so clients and deadlines) and I don't get to do that. When he was unemployed for 9 months and I was the sole breadwinner he was too depressed to do anything around the house because searching for a job was stressful. No mention how maybe things were stressful for me too.

When he wanted to go back to school we went into major debt with the hopefully return being a financial stable career. When I wanted to go back to school for the same reason we didn't suddenly couldn't find the funds, and this time it didn't make sense for us to go into debt in order to further *my* career.

He went back to school while working full time meaning he was gone from the house from 9 am until 9pm - he only saw the kids on the weekend because we were gone in the morning before he woke up, and they were asleep when he got home. So 100% my responsibility. After a year of this he quit his job to just go to school (still only at night) but there was no change in his contribution with the kids or around the house. Years later I was up for a promotion but it would require me to work different hours - which meant he'd have to be responsible for the kids in the evening until I got home. I had to turn down the promotion because he wouldn't pick up the kids from their after school program at 6 every night.

This is different from what you said earlier. Frankly, I don't see how you agreed to all of this. Even if you exaggerate to some extent (which is expected when there is only one side to a story), this doesn't sound like a fair arrangement. It was within your power to disagree with the changes that did not work for you or your family. Saying that DH got to be that way, because he is entitled to it due to his sex, is unfair. He got that way, because you allowed him to. This is a common dynamic (goes either way gender-wise), but most partners would put a stop to it at some point.