Reply to Emotional Labor - a good read for men AND women

Forum Index » Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)

Reply to "Emotional Labor - a good read for men AND women"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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:

[quote=Anonymous] 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".

[quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

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.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics