[ SECRET POST #3238 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3238 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 043 secrets from Secret Submission Post #463.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Thoughts?

[(Anonymous)]

http://jezebel.com/is-it-even-worthwhile-to-teach-men-to-value-emotional-l-1742222786

Re: Thoughts?

[(Anonymous)]

>jezebel

nope

Re: Thoughts?

[(Anonymous)]

Fine

Is it Even Worthwhile to Teach Men to Value Emotional Labor?

One of the most essentialist views about the difference between men and women is that women are naturally better at dealing with feelings. But even though studies have suggested this is false, is it worth pushing men to split this kind of work, just as we have with housework and diaper-changing?

In an interesting piece at the Guardian, Rose Hackman digs into the cost of women absorbing most of the emotional labor required to make the world go round—the workplace kind (which includes conjuring and telegraphing the appropriate feelings for your customer-service type job, being pleasant at work, and doing all the menial shit workplaces tend to off-source onto women, like office housework) but also the interpersonal kind, like presenting as nice, caring, and genial, because as a woman, you’re supposed to be those things.

Even though this stuff has been studied for decades, Hackman posits that it’s just now becoming something mainstream feminism is really looking to unpack; perhaps it is the next frontier in radically rethinking how women’s work is diminished. There are real consequences for this stuff, Hackman notes: tipped workers (mostly women, mostly women of color) are twice as likely to be harassed, and in addition to all the ways men schmooze, small-talk, and seem personable, it’s a plus when they do it—it’s an expectation for women.

Part of the problem is that people seem heavily invested in this view of women as a fount of innate love, even 30-something male feminist types. Hackman quotes one as saying, “Why is the fact that women provide emotional support work, though? What if people actually enjoy it? What if women are just better at doing that? Why do we have to make that something negative?”

Well, we aren’t making it negative. For one thing, as Hackman notes, there’s a difference between being better at something naturally and better because of a lifetime of conditioning. Studies show that this is just an elaborate gender construct—that women are often cast in the role of the pleasant helper, which we then characterized it as their most natural self. And this has happened fairly constantly to women over the course of history. We weren’t (and in some places, still aren’t) given access to education, and it was therefore concluded that we were not as intelligent. We were held hostage in the home our entire lives, and celebrated for being such wonderful decorators. And on and on and on.

And for another thing—even if women are better at feelings due to a lifetime of wallowing in them, as Jess Zimmerman lays out so poignantly in her essay about the hours and hours of agony aunt duty she’s filed in her lifetime—it’s still exhausting, time-consuming, and damaging. Zimmerman suggests possible compensation, only half joking:

Rather, women should get paid for all the work they typically do for free – all the affirmation, forbearance, consultation, pacifying, guidance, tutorial, and weathering abuse that we spend energy on every single day. Imagine a menu of emotional labor: Acknowledge your thirsty posturing, $50. Pretend to find you fascinating, $100. Soothe your ego so you don’t get angry, $150. Smile hollowly while you make a worse version of their joke, $200. Explain 101-level feminism to you like you’re five years old, $300. Listen to your rant about “bitches,” $infinity.
(For what it’s worth, this “Need a Mom” service in Brooklyn outsources the mom version of this work for $40 an hour.)

And when it comes to hetero marriage, it’s almost inevitable that women will throw in on this more than men. Hackman speaks with a lawyer who is in what she characterizes as an equal relationship, who chronicles for Hackman the endless thoughtfulness that she proffers, most of which goes unnoticed—everything from whether the sheets are getting old and new ones need purchasing, to what he might like for dinner, to answering his endless questions about where various household things are located.

“It suggests to me that there is a detachment to home that I do not have the luxury of having,” she tells Hackman. “Because if I did, then our everyday life would be a nightmare. So I take on that role. That’s not my authentic self, but I have no choice.” The author posits that even if nature didn’t make us better at it, we clearly are, so “Should we just shut up and get on with it because the world would probably stop turning if we didn’t?”

That detachment to home life can be maddening. Whether it’s picture day for the child, an eye appointment that must be made, or thank-you cards that must be sent, usually it’s women who track all this stuff. These are things that many men have the luxury of thinking don’t matter all that much, or matter only to women. Things they were used to having handled by their own mothers, which then tend to get transferred in duty to their wives. Women sometimes try to ask men to care, often endlessly, or tell them they want them to want to care, at the very least, but it doesn’t seem to stick.

And it only gets worse when you have kids. You go into parenting with a perfect vision of splitting everything just so, and then the baby arrives and suddenly, as sociologists often note, we are all playing these “1950s movies” in our heads, which the urgency of parenting and the primal instincts behind it tend to reinforce: stick to what you know, what you’ve seen, what you can manage. You’re too fucking tired to fight the system.

And therein lies the rub. Getting men to understand how important this stuff is often an uphill battle that goes against everything we’ve been taught and seen modeled. In the domestic labor division wars, arguing that men simply don’t care as much about these things is a common position, though some Millennial dads are invested in throwing all in. But this is all part of anticipating needs, something men tend not to be raised to do.

I do more of the emotional work with my daughter—the sorting through feelings, the talking about them, the emotional literacy that I think is a huge part of being a good person. It’s not that my husband doesn’t think it matters. It’s that there are two of us to split things, and he gravitated toward imparting the things he was best at, which are hands-on, problem-solving skills. It’s easier to do what we know, even though we both know it’s a result of how we were raised. And the best thing we can do is try to raise a well-balanced person. But the crux of it is that she’s still associating traditional behavior with the typical gender, and all the talking in the world won’t undo the power of that division. So even as we’ve labored to make her more well-rounded, we’ve still reinforced the tradition.

And it seems men can absolutely learn to do it, but in some cases, it requires the absence of a women to step in, and it doesn’t sound “easy” either. Essays from single dads remind us that men can rise to the occasion of emotional presence when they have kids, even if they think it’s “innate.” Last year, Dave Taylor wrote about his own experience adjusting to single fatherhood, saying, “after almost 7 years of flying solo, I’ve learned a few things about finding the balance between innate male reactions and the need for a child to have a parent who is present, who is tough when needed but who is also sympathetic.”

It’s unfortunate because with parenting, it’s not something you can just turn on or off like schmoozing with a client. You have to be present in the here and now, and give the best you’ve got, and that tends to get divided in the ways that are easiest to produce on no sleep. Men can certainly be taught, but do you have a lifetime to wait? No, because you have meals to plan, RSVPs to send, and a crying child who needs to be hugged.

Re: Thoughts?

[(Anonymous)]

*gently pushes away your stinky wankbait*

No, thanks.

Re: Thoughts?

[(Anonymous)]

I don't click on links. Say what you want to say in your paragraph, stop it with the "I'm only going to post a link without explanation" spam. (wish Case would ban these types of posts)

Re: Thoughts?

[(Anonymous)]

As you wish. Posted it upthread.

Basically asking if the benefits of teaching men to share the emotional workload of a relationship is worth the effort. Some interesting points brought up, some bullshit science brought up, Overall not sure which side I come down on, but thought it was interesting.

Re: Thoughts?

[(Anonymous)]

+1

Re: Thoughts?

[(Anonymous)]

LOL what? Oh noes teh ebil links are gonna eat your compooter!

Re: Thoughts?

[(Anonymous)]

Fine piece with a shitty, attention-grabby title. I mean, the article doesn't even begin to suggest that getting men to value & be skilled at emotional labor is not worthwhile. What I got from it is more that it's very difficult work for men to acquire this kind of skill and overcome this situation (which I think is true), and some personal reflections on how difficult it is to balance that against the immediate needs that come with raising a child. I think all of those points are more than fair.

Re: Thoughts?

[(Anonymous)]

SA

If you want my opinion on the question of "whether it is worth it to educate men in emotional labor": I think yes. Partly for feminist reasons but also because, like... my feeling is that emotional labor is a crucial part of a well-lived life. I think it is an indispensable component of human flourishing. I think it is necessary. For society and for every person as a person.

Now I do not think it follows that any single woman should have to teach any single man those lessons. Don't know that any single woman could - but more to the point, this is a broad social problem & has to be addressed as such. And emotional labor has to be understood as a practice and a skill and a mindset. And it'll take time. But it's absolutely, absolutely worthwhile and necessary.

You know why I'm sock of women?

[(Anonymous)]

Ha, looks like we can both do wank-bait titles!

But you know what I'm sick of? People who are not men talking about the things that go on in mens heads. "Men like this" "Men are like this" "Men are not capable/ not inclined/ not comfortable doing/ thinking/ being this way"

and even when they add the caveat "Most men" that is still bullshit, because you are talking as an authority on something you cannot be an authority on. but some how it's ok, because women's minds are emotional and deep and hard to understand and impossible to generalise, Men are dumb animals that can be picked apart by the most armchair of psychology.

Re: You know why I'm sock of women?

[(Anonymous)]

Do you have any things in particular in the piece in question that you thought were unfair generalizations?

Re: You know why I'm sock of women?

[(Anonymous)]

Honey, the article generalizes women, too, and quotes men.

People like you don't understand the words "society," "culture," and "trend." You whine about how "but I'M not like that so everything you're saying is WRONG!" And it makes you look like a sensitive, easily offended moron.

Personally, I'm shoe of women

[(Anonymous)]

~

Re: You know why I'm sock of women?

[(Anonymous)]

Because you can't walk in her shoes? (Due to the fact you can't fit in them?)

Your "Perfect Pair" car decal didn't look right?

Your feet are naturally ashy, and you must keep them moisturized and covered at all times, and this interferes with your sexytimes?

Let me know if I'm getting warm.

Re: Thoughts?

[(Anonymous)]

"which includes conjuring and telegraphing the appropriate feelings for your customer-service type job"

Because no men work in customer service jobs?

Re: Thoughts?

[(Anonymous)]

I think the argument would be that men in those positions generally have more latitude to act out their personalities in ways that are not necessarily pleasant & flattering to the humanity of the customer.

Also from the link it seems they have in mind professions that are actually heavily gendered when they say that so *shrug*

Re: Thoughts?

[(Anonymous)]

Is "unpack" the new SJ buzzword? I hadn't heard it before this week, but yesterday I saw it on Tumblr (in a post about "my fave character is autistic and if you disagree you need to unpack and examine why you're so ableist") and now here. It's pissing me off already.

Re: Thoughts?

[(Anonymous)]

"Unpack" has been around since the dawn of SJ, as in the ubiquitous article "White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack."

Re: Thoughts?

[herpymcderp]

Well, it's Jezebel, so I doubt I'll be clicking that link.

Re: Thoughts?

[diet_poison]

That's really interesting.

I'm not sure what the point is, though. They're basically saying all this stuff that's true about socialization and emotional labor, and then concluding with "well maybe we shouldn't bother changing it because it's hard".

Nobody ever said it had to change overnight. I think the efforts the author and her husband are making do make a difference. And yes, talking about it does matter, even if it's not the only influence a kid will have.

waste of time

[(Anonymous)]

The problem, I think, it's that a lot of this is being framed as an individual task as opposed to a cultural one. As a culture, we should strive to educate men about the importance of emotional labor. However this article approaches the problem as if the responsibility fell on specific women who have to educate specific men (their husbands and partners, mostly).

And I get this is a worthy goal but honey, ain't nobody got time for that.

I don't enter a relationship with the idea that the other person is a project or something I have to "fix" so that they'll reach acceptable levels of... whatever you want to call it. I enter a relationship under the assumption that my partner is an adult with a reasonable level of maturity.

If my partner, regardless of gender, is not mature enough to invest a comparable -- if not equal. hey i'm flexible! -- amount of emotional energy on our relationship, then they're not going to be my partner for long.

There's plenty of fish in the sea, specially when you're into all genders, and I don't have a second to waste on babies.

Re: waste of time

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah I agree with this. There are already men out there who are willing to do emotional labor. Better to spend time on and with them.

Re: Thoughts?

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, complete waste of time. Kill 'em all.

Re: Thoughts?

[(Anonymous)]

I like the bit about the absence of women often being required for the lesson to be leaned. It's unfortunate, but it explains why I tend to be dawn to men who've spent a good chunk of their adult lives single/in only non-cohabitational relationships (and not living with their parents during that time) since it means they either had to learn to do stuff like remember to send their mother a birthday card or faced the consequences and therefore aren't likely to automatically expect me to do it for them.

I think an important consideration when it comes to correcting these kind of socialized behaviors is to stop worrying so much about whether we are raising girls to be well-rounded, independent women with all the "masculine" skills needed in life but to stop and ask if we are raising boys to be similarly well-rounded and independent by giving them all the necessary "feminine" skills, like recognizing the value in foreseeing others' needs, feeling attachment to your home life, and putting in the effort required to maintain relationships. I read another article that touched on some of the same issues and either the article or someone in the comments noted that a study showed that rates of depression were higher in older men who were single than in older women who were single or in older people who were in relationships, the problem being that in the absence of a partner, women still maintained friendships and connections, but men did not so much, and if they no longer worked, they had much less social interaction and were more lonely. Do you want your son to end up lonely and sad if his wife dies before him?