The exhaustion of the heavy lifting

I'm going to start with a funny (somewhat) story about emotional labor.

My household consists of my mother, two younger sisters and me, and our older sister is frequently here. We were all invited to a milestone birthday party for a neighbor. We noted the date and intended to go. We put the invitation on the side of the fridge, but did not write it on the calendar.

On the day of the party we suddenly remembered "Oh! That's tonight!" I looked at the invitation to check times and things, and saw that it requested RSVPs by a date that was fifteen days previous. No one had caught that.

We ended up not going. What we should have done was called that day and we would have been reassured that we should come anyway. What would have been better yet would have been calling with an RSVP the day we got the invitation and marking it on the kitchen calendar so we were well-reminded.

The problem is that even with all of these women, no one is the wife. I tend to let my sisters worry about schedules because they are busier and it's easier for me to be flexible. However, I have more capacity for remembering, and December is a busy enough month that it should have been my turn to ride herd. We did not get that worked out.

I thought of the situation in those terms because of this anecdote in a New York Times article:

These invisible duties become apparent only when you don’t do them. I’m reminded of the time I went on an emotional labor strike. I asked my husband to manage an event we were both invited to, and when we showed up two hours late, per his mistake, all eyes were on me. “We expected you much sooner,” the host said — only to me.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/smarter-living/stress-gap-women-men.html

Yes. that is exactly how it happens, but I know one reason that the article resonated with me more was an early reference to problem-solving dreams, which have been a frequent occurrence for me.

We don't have a clear household structure, but we are more than roommates. That can be resolved with active communication. It requires mutual respect, but it is doable. There are married couples who do this too, and they have better marriages for it. Many couples do not, and the most likely result is a burned out wife.

It is important to remember that sexism is just as structural as racism. When men are satisfied with a balance in responsibility that favors them, it does not automatically mean that they are evil or stupid or anything like that. They may not even be unresponsive to complaints, because many women don't know how to articulate why they are unhappy in a situation that seemed to work for their parents, and where they are fulfilling roles that are lauded as the most important work that a woman can do.

We are still working out the vocabulary for it. The previous article refers to a pretty good article on emotional labor from The Toast, but what it really reminded me of was another one from Bazaar:


http://the-toast.net/2015/07/13/emotional-labor/
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/features/a12063822/emotional-labor-gender-equality/ 

The term emotional labor has been out there for a while, but the first encounter with it that I remember was the Bazaar article, and I remember it because it gave me a word for a concept that I understood instantly.

It's not a coincidence that The Feminine Mystique referred to "the problem with no name". There are many problems for women that may be harder to identify because men's problems come first. (The Toast article gives some really good elucidation on that.)

Even never having been married (though certainly having observed many marriages) or having dated much, there is constant expectation of attention. Sometimes it is simply mystifying why there is a need to comment when it is merely to let me know that he knows a fact that I also know. Even more baffling is the right apparently felt by strangers to encourage me to smile, ask me questions, and then give me advice based on those answers that is incredibly ignorant. Yes, sometimes you get free drinks out of it, but I'd rather pay for the drink. I often enjoy conversation, but that's not really what this is; the failure to observe or respect any boundaries seriously reduces the chance of a good conversation.

That is all very tiring with strangers (and also has some dangers that we will get too), but when it happens with the man you love and are committed to as well, that can be a poison. If you try and talk about it - eloquently or not - and he's not hearing it because it puts more work into his life, sometimes there are unhappy marriages and sometimes there are divorces and it is really easy for unmarried women to stay that way. Even though you hope that not all men are going to be like that, it is hard to be optimistic about the ones you're meeting.

When there were more single breadwinner families and that breadwinner was usually the husband, there could have been a certain logic to the wife taking responsibility for all of the domestic chores and maybe even all of the emotional labor, though there could certainly an unsatisfying inequality there. When you have women working equal hours (but with less pay, and having to deal more with other sexism and very likely some harassment), and then they still do the bulk of the housework and the childcare, and then men still won't contribute more emotionally - or even even recognize her contributions - that is why I say men are the biggest threat to marriage.

I have heard it blamed as selfishness on the part of men, and I feel it is very important to stress that it is not generally a conscious selfishness, more like a child's selfishness. There is less of a pattern for growing out of it. This is more obviously a problem for women, but it is not great for men either.

There will be additional posts and things to work on, but the most important thing for anyone reading this now is to consider where and how you fit in.

Pause in the series - Merry Christmas

Although I hate to prolong the suspense, there are ways in which it seemed unseasonal to write a post on the problems with men right before Christmas, though if I were not so tired I would probably have done it anyway. I'll pick back up next week.

Clinging to the past

In case it has not been obvious, these last few posts go together and I will continue posting about this for the next few weeks. Topics we are going to look at include how the current paradigm is bad for women, how it is bad for men, and whether constructed gender differences even make sense.

For this post, I want to go with a question at the end of the last post. It built off of the question of whether women have this special gift of being able to predict and understand men's needs, and whether men would be willing to give that up. I suspect not.

My thinking there has been going on since reading an older conference talk in my personal study, "The Moral Force of Women" by Elder D. Todd Christofferson, from the October 2013 General Conference:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/the-moral-force-of-women?lang=eng

I suppose what stuck with me most was how he acknowledged the historical double standard, and even said the response you would hope for would be men improving themselves, but then still spends more time asking women not to change. His is not the only talk to contain those themes. That quote from Sister Nadauld has been used often, and always in the same way.

I agree that the solution to the double standard is not women becoming worse. I find it frustrating that the answer is always then a focus on how women need to stay soft and good so that we can continue to elevate men. We are so lovely and supportive and uncomplaining, and completely and utterly failing at elevating men.

Yes, we often succeed at making men comfortable, but this does not improve them. If discomfort is not absolutely necessary for change, it is at least one of the most reliable motivators. Working toward change will disrupt comfort anyway, so it may be best to not get too attached.

Still, when women are telling men that they need to change, suddenly off the pedestal we come. Men get condescending if that works and angry if it doesn't, sometimes scarily so.

The truth is, I am a compassionate person, so I will always be more drawn to alleviating discomfort than causing it. I am seeing too many examples, though, of ways that women accommodate men, and choose our words carefully, and try so hard not to hurt any feelings, and there is no reciprocation and no reward. Encouragement to be selfless shouldn't lull us into being ineffective.

If I may draw another lesson from racism, people will often react to criticism of racist behavior - even when mildly and kindly given - as persecution, drawing a disproportionate defensiveness in response. As frustrating as this is, it makes sense. In a white supremacist society there has been so much designed toward the comfort in being white that anything threatening that can feel fundamentally wrong and frightening.

Our society is male supremacist too.

I know some men are better. I believe that more men can be much better, but the change will take conscious effort. I am afraid that the motivation is not there.

I will keep at it from my end, knowing that I may tick off several people, and being torn between caring and not caring. How we balance that will have to come later on.

For now, though, there is something that I have been hinting at that I am ready to come out and say now:

The biggest current threat to marriage and family is men.

I will back that up over the next week or two.

The special gift

For my point today I am going to be making an analogy that can serve as food for thought for the week. There are two problems with the analogy.

One is that I don't have any good sources for the first part of the analogy. I have read people talking about it, it makes sense, but I know first-hand sources would be better, and I apologize for their absence.

The other risk is that it can be used incorrectly, so I am going to give a warning against that now.

When you examine various types of marginalization, there is a risk of taking too much from the comparisons. The common risk is that a group that is less marginalized will see some similarities to another group and decide "That's us now!" Probably without realizing it, they erase the other group from the present day, when it is very unlikely that the original group's oppression has ended.

Don't do that!

Having said that, here we go.

The thing that I have read but can't point you to is that Black people have a clear understanding of white ways that is not reciprocated. One useful result of this is that when people set up fake troll accounts pretending to be Black, they are not convincing. They mimic what they think is accurate, but they don't understand what they are trying to do.

In the context of tweets, in many cases it is the grammar. They see the use of African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) and think it is just bad English, not recognizing it as a language with its own rules. They could study the language, but that they are trolling anyway may indicate that they are not going to make the best use of their time.

My post is not really about that, but more about Black people understanding us (periodic reminder that I am white and I know it). This is about them being able to switch between dialects and social norms and ways of being, and how that competency came about.

In some ways it is easy because of white dominance. Celebrated authors are mainly white. Casts of movies and television shows are mostly white, and so are the writers and producers, which may have even more to do with the end product. The education system has been controlled by white people, and the point of views informing the text books - even if more liberal - are largely white. Legislators are mainly white. Yes, there are cries for diversity and sometimes some progress, but the white influence is ubiquitous. Even as we borrow from Black people, it gains acceptance and popularity through white people. That is why when you think of early rock and roll, you are more likely to think of Elvis than Sister Rosetta Tharpe.

Beyond the omnipresence of white culture, understanding it is also a safety matter. Black parents talk to their children about how to deal with the police in a manner that white parents don't need to. It's not fair, but it is necessary. Knowing which towns you can't be in after sundown is a life or death matter. Knowing how much likelier you are to be perceived as angry if you don't carefully control your voice can be a life or death matter, but it is frequently a career matter.

There are many discussions that can be had within this topic about intersectionality and structural racism, and we are not getting into that now. The point now is just that as a group that has faced prejudice and oppression and been expected to be deferential to white people, Black people understand white people really well.

Now, I want you to consider this excerpt from President Nelson's talk in the General Women's session in the last conference:

Men can and often do communicate the love of Heavenly Father and the Savior to others. But women have a special gift for it—a divine endowment. You have the capacity to sense what someone needs—and when he or she needs it. You can reach out, comfort, teach, and strengthen someone in his or her very moment of need.

Women see things differently than men do, and oh, how we need your perspective! Your nature leads you to think of others first, to consider the effect that any course of action will have on others.

Is that a gift or a necessity?

Think of that paragraph on white dominance and how easily it could be changed to a paragraph about male dominance and still be true.

I'm not saying it's only a survival mechanism; we are sensitive to the needs of other women too, they are careful to say. I will say that a lot of social conditioning goes into it. So, is that a special gift, where we expect it of women and not of men?

And if not, are men ready to give that up?

Before we go further...

I have more critique to give, of both President Nelson's comments in the Saturday evening session, and of gender constructs within the church in general. However, before I do that, I want to point out some things that are good.

We should be better than other churches, given the resources that we have. In some ways we are. We are certainly not always better enough, and if we can come to some understanding about why that is - and improve it - that would be ideal.

One thing that I have hinted at but am not done talking about is how there seems to be a doubling down on chauvinism that I think is a backlash to #metoo and other things. That is not exclusive to our church, and I think is much worse outside the church.

Some other religious types are starting to bring up Eve's mistake more, for their justification of how women taking the lead ruins everything. We know that was something that needed to happen, and was a good choice.

On the purely speculative side, I have wondered whether perhaps men having the priesthood and taking the leadership roles is because of that. Since women are more likely to take the initiative and accomplish things, and since much of mortality is getting better at things that are hard for you, then maybe it is logical that roles have been set up so that everyone has to do what is harder, including women waiting for men to do the right thing. However, that is just speculation, and probably less likely than a lot of it being that gender doesn't really matter all that much except for man-made constructs.

(I will get more into the things get said about gender in church next week.)

I will also allow that getting back to early feminism, with The Feminine Mystique and the problem that had no name, women inside the church were probably better off.  Remembering that it was a problem more of middle class women who didn't have enough to do, with church callings and service and at least some putative doctrine of equality, I could believe that women in the church had more fulfillment than women outside the church. It wouldn't have been perfect, but nothing earthly is.

Still, a lot has changed now, and that might not hold up. For example, one reason women with lower incomes did not worry so much about the purpose of their lives was that they were too busy working. There are now far fewer women who have the luxury of choice.

There are good things in that, as some women have found fulfilling careers and undiscovered abilities.

There are also bad things, in terms of encountering sexual harassment, a lack of respect in the workplace, unequal pay for unequal work, and unequal distribution of labor in the home despite both parties working.

As the world moves forward in this way, I am afraid many members are ill-equipped to grasp the problems there, and probably not very well-motivated in the case of the men. After all, the old system has worked really well for them.

More on that next week.

A big way in which he was wrong

Let's revisit President Nelson's talk in the Saturday evening session.

Between him and President Oaks, there was a message that social media might be a source of stress and unhappiness, and that can be a good reason to take a break.

That is fine. There are good points to it. I wrote about that:

https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2018/10/using-social-media.html

Here is what I think that they missed: one reason many women were having bad feelings right around then were the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh, where women were being painfully reminded of how much gets done to us by men, and how little it matters to men.

Much like the Clarence Thomas hearings, there were multiple accusers, but only one got to speak. It got her publicly ridiculed, though in this case they were trying to be kinder, so many people were suggesting that she was just mistaken about who did it, rather than saying that she was lying and crazy. However, there were still a lot of people calling her crazy and lying and evil. Many people were sympathetic to the disruption in his life, easily forgetting that weeks later she had still not been able to return home or to her job.

Of course different women reacted differently. Some women even participated in the attacks on Christine Blasey Ford. They have their own price to pay for that. However, more women were angry. Women who had experienced their own sexual assaults - including rape - were plagued by their own memories. Specific things that she said in her own testimony were felt physically. That especially included the memory of the laughter, and the memory of the fear that she would be killed, even accidentally, because of the disregard.

Even for women with the "easier" backgrounds of never having been physically assaulted but "only" being harassed at work or held back - things where the problem can only be your sensitivity or some problem with you, and not the problem of men just mattering more and being allowed to get away with more - it brings a lot back.

Even the comparisons with Clarence Thomas and all the focus of #metoo made it worse, because there is still so little progress. There were so many good reasons to not confirm Kavanaugh, and he still ended up confirmed for life. Dr. Ford's worst fear was that she would do this and go through it and turn her life upside down and it wouldn't matter; that's pretty much how it went down. It was a completely reasonable fear, and still one that gets no sympathy, only blame for not coming forward.

(Pro tip: the people who blame you for coming forward late really didn't want you to come forward at all. They are mad, but they are being disingenuous in their reasons.)

So here's the thing: while taking a break from social media AND news coverage might lessen the acute stress of those hearings, it doesn't do anything to alleviate the stress of being treated as less, even by the people who claim to honor and love and admire you.

Even very good men do not seem to be ready to understand that.

One more thing about the financial threat to families

I know I said today I would go into the second threat to marriage, but it didn't feel right.

My issue is that what I want to say will be off-putting to some, but I want readers to at least have to consider the possibility. I am currently pondering if there is a process I can follow whereby laying the groundwork and connecting the dots will make it more palatable. Maybe it will be better to just be blunt.

For now, though, there was a point that I had thought about making last week, but when I was writing, it didn't come up.

If you recall, last week was about how financial problems threaten families, and while it is not necessarily a concentrated, intentional attack, the damage still gets done, mainly because of greed.

That is largely the greed of a shrinking few, as economic mobility becomes more constricted, but it is abetted by the pride of others. Pride makes it easy to compare and assume that the misfortunes of others are due to their stupidity or laziness, but you are good and the bad things that happen to you are unfair.

There are obvious downsides to that way of thinking. I am sure some are less obvious (like an increasingly difficult to suppress anger that burns harder as your luck runs out despite your goodness), but there is another, terribly "duh" thing that we frequently miss:

Jesus spoke really strongly against the wealthy.

He told people that he provided for animals and plants who did not labor. If you look more closely, you can see that the birds and flowers do what they are supposed to do, but he was not promoting toil for acquisition. The guy who was so prosperous that he wanted to build bigger barns died, without getting to enjoy the fruits of his labor. The rich man who did not help Lazarus languished in Hell. It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. Don't get caught up on whether that was the name of a certain gate; that would be missing the point.

I could bring up many scriptural examples. That is not just the teachings during the mortal ministry of Jesus, but also from other prophets, on both continents, where in multiple dispensations there have been saints who have practiced communal living.

Over and over again, wealth is bad. Could that be because its accumulation tends to involve exploiting others? Could it be because having too much tends to make people forget God? Could it be because the more people have, the more they think it is not enough, but nor realizing why? There are reasons.

None of that devalues hard work, but there is no scriptural basis for allowing unbridled capitalism or laissez-faire capitalism, or anything else where you justify people working hard for poverty wages so that a few people can be wildly wealthy.

It may be in the service of avoiding the obvious that the dehumanization and vilification of others happens, where you assume they are lazy, and not deserving of food or vacations or being able to spend weekends enjoying the company of their children, but I promise you, there is still no scriptural justification.

Just something to think about while I try to find a tactful way of saying...