Hacker News Reader

If my wife wrote this article, I'd be furious.

I agree: This article is blatantly sexist, and the author is essentially complaining about her partner not telepathically reading her mind to "sense" her completely arbitrary standards for cleanliness in the home. She makes a big point of how she "controls the budget", and yet I have a strong suspicion that she wouldn't allow her husband to do so if he offered.

Let's be clear: Socks laying on the floor doesn't affect people's health. The standards of cleanliness adopted by western women (starting in the middle of the 20th century) were created by a patriarchal consumerist advertising industry working to market new chemical household cleaners. They are, scientifically, wholly excessive and even counterproductive. I say this as someone who keeps my home clean and uncluttered, and washes the dishes and cleans the kitchen every night. Edit: The marketing psychology used for this prays on people who measure higher on tests for neurotic tendencies. From a statistical perspective, the distribution for women on this trait is significantly to the right of men. For more examples of "purity" marketing to people higher on the neuroticism scale, see numerous illogical products that are environmentally damaging: bottled water, soap with "cleansing beads", "flushable" wipes, etc, etc.

If I wrote a blog post ranting and raving about how my wife never wants to manage the maintenance of our vehicles, and how I'm emotionally tired of trying to get her to keep track of the mileage of her vehicle to ensure she gets an oil change, I'd be called a whiner at best and sexist at worst.

This is the kind of stuff that makes me tire of the self-proclaimed Northeastern intelligentsia. You can package this up as a well-written, intellectual essay all you want. It doesn't change the fact that this is no different than the person at lunch whining about their spouse to their coworkers while they all roll their eyes.

> Socks laying on the floor doesn't affect people's health.

You're missing the point. She mentions that the clean house isn't the goal, the clean house would "simply be a bonus"

> complaining about her partner not telepathically reading her mind to "sense" her completely arbitrary standards

She also makes the point that she has told him what she wants.

> You're missing the point. She mentions that the clean house isn't the goal, the clean house would "simply be a bonus"

But all she actually asked for is the clean house, that's the communication problem here.

No, she asked for a cleaning service. Not a clean house.

> For Mother's Day I asked for one thing: a house cleaning service.

I don't see her quoting what she told her husband, so we only have her summary to go off of. I think the details would be important here.

Her instructions are clearly clear enough to her husband, who makes one call to a cleaning service before Mother's day.

> The real gift I wanted was to be relieved of the emotional labor of a single task that had been nagging at the back of my mind. The clean house would simply be a bonus.

The clean house is presumably a goal, here. Otherwise, the obvious solution is not to clean the house.

(I'm not saying there's anything wrong with having the clean house as a goal. But it's important to know what your goals are, so that you can decide which actions will further your goals.)

> "The clean house is presumably a goal, here."

The goal is to reduce the mental burden of having to think about the cleaning.

There is no "the goal". There are goals, plural. One goal is to have a clean house, and another goal is not to think about cleaning the house.

You can achieve the second goal by deciding not to clean the house. But that doesn't satisfy the first goal.

> "There is no "the goal"."

Nope, there is a clear goal. The author made it clear that a clean house was "a bonus". What do you think that suggests about what the main goal was?

I don't think it makes sense to call something a bonus unless it's also a goal.

I never said all goals were equal, so asking which is the main goal is irrelevant; my point is just that both goals exist as goals.

>>There isn't a single example of this "emotional labor" in the article, where a consideration is given to "the man" about how much labor it takes, emotionally, to keep up with someone who has high expectations for their environment, but does not communicate those expectations in a way that forms consensus - instead, opting to 'shame the man' for not having the same standards.

Not to mention the 'emotional labor' of working full time to keep a family afloat.

The only part I agree with the author on is that the man should be keeping his house running and in working order. If it was not part of their division of labor agreement (aka marriage) that she would maintain the house as well as raise the kids (I'm assuming, based on what she wrote) - then he needs to step up by doing those things himself or hiring someone else to do. Which is what she asked for originally.

Everything else is her misusing a term to justify her emotions and argument and shaming her husband for not fixing how she feels.

The biggest issue, as you said, is the lack of communication.

I think you and the parent comment have completely missed her point.

> Not to mention the 'emotional labor' of working full time to keep a family afloat.

She mentions this exact same defense that many men say. You also don't know their income breakdown; she has a job, she's freelanced, while also making household and familial decisions.

She doesn't have a point other than "I want more help around the house and my husband won't listen".

That's not a failing of anything other than the husband's ability to listen and her ability to be upfront with her expectations.

Income breakdown is irrelevant.

This particular author’s arguments are irritating, self-centered, and over-generalized, so I’m not really defending the piece.

But the author is quite explicit that her husband does any task asked; what she’s asking for is that he take more initiative and not require praise when he does so.

I agree with many other commenters that coming to consensus on “everyone in the family is expected to spend 2 minutes every evening putting away things they’ve taken out without requiring nagging or praise” is a very low bar and should not be a hard communication problem to solve in a healthy relationship.

I'm male. I have a female roommate. (We're not involved) I do almost all of the dishes, I take out the trash, I clean the kitchen and the public bathroom, and tidy the dining space and wash the floors, and I harbor zero resentment towards her. I just value cleanliness more, so I should expect to pay a premium (in labor) for that preference.

I also don't require any praise for what I do. The cleanliness is it's own reward.

I flipped your and your roommates genders in my head, and was immediately incensed about the continued repression of women in our society - looks the program is working as intended. Um hmm.

Why were you incensed? I'm totally fine with our arrangement; it's just a consequence of basic supply and demand and the fact that no one owes me amything.

I think the comment was meant to draw attention to today's societal programming. It seems very likely that if a woman were to say the same thing one might be inclined to view it as an example her internalized misogyny and symptom of the systematic oppression of women in general, rather than a human being who derived satisfaction from keeping their living space tidy.

Many couples haven't even thought to communicate about this because the unconscious social conditional is so strong. It's an unreflected assumption that the female and male are in charge of certain duties.

In my experience communication happens again and again and again over a period of years until the woman gives up in exasperation and just seethes silently. It's hard to get someone to engage in emotional labor (or as I like to call it, 'giving a fuck') when they simply don't give a fuck, no matter how much you communicate.

Since not caring enough to do the basic gruntwork associated with a decent relationship is almost always a male problem in our society, I'm also gobsmacked that you'd call it sexist. It's about as sexist as calling gun violence or any other widely gendered thing a male problem - there's exceptions out there, but it's not worth being pedantic about.

I think you're arbitrarily privileging "giving a fuck" over "not giving a fuck". Try this:

Alice wants Task X to be done. Bob does not care whether Task X is done.

Let us stipulate that, if Task X is not done, nobody will be materially, objectively harmed.

Alice says: because I want Task X, you will do Task X. Alice does not ask Bob's opinion on Task X, but rather assumes that Task X is inherently necessary, and therefore Bob's opinion is not worth considering. In fact, Alice is annoyed that Bob hasn't taken the initiative to recognize the inherent necessity of Task X, and complete it on his own without being asked.

Bob does not believe Task X to be inherently necessary.

Option 1: Bob may complete Task X because it makes Alice happy. That's nice of Bob. Unfortunately, Alice is seething that she had to ask Bob in the first place. That's kind of mean of Alice.

Option 2: Bob fails to accomplish Task X, because it isn't his personal priority. That's kind of thoughtless of Bob, but Bob is a human and sometimes we let low-priority items drop off our radar. Alice will do Task X herself, furious that Bob did not do it.

Option 3: Bob fails to accomplish Task X, because it isn't his personal priority. Alice lets go of Task X, leaving it undone, because it's just Task X, and her relationship with Bob matters more to her than Task X. That's nice of Alice.

In a "fair" scenario, Option 3 should be on the table at least half the time. But it never is. Why can Alice not let go of Task X? Why MUST it be done? Why is Alice's perspective on the necessity of Task X to be privileged over that of Bob?

It’s usually because not doing the task has very real negative consequences and due to the sexist nature of modern society the consequences fall most heavily on Alice, not on Bob. Don’t buy the nephews birthday cards? The relatives think badly of Alice, not Bob. Take your son out in mismatched or slightly too small clothes? People pass judgement on Alice, not Bob.

When Bob doesn’t think something is necessary and Alice does, Bob needs to step back and think about why she does, because there’s generally a good reason. Going immediately to game theory isn’t helpful when you’ve got imperfect information due to your own lack of introspection.

> Take your son out in mismatched or slightly too small clothes? People pass judgement on Alice, not Bob.

Or they'll just laugh it off with "I see daddy dressed you today". Meanwhile if Bob dresses his son impeccably, Alice will get all the credit.

If Bob keeps house instead of working overtime, Alice will get all the housekeeping credit and Bob will be judged for not being an effective breadwinner.

It's almost like societal gender roles can screw over both sexes.

Is this true? I couldn't fathom my relatives being upset at my wife for that sort of thing. (Her relatives might be upset at her, since they're the related ones.)

And no one cares what kids wear.

Maybe this article is necessary for some upper crust WASP readers who would feel the way you indicate (since I agree that is sexist and unreasonable), but it's totally foreign to me and my social circle.

Now, I suppose if the wife isn't working, then maybe those sorts of things are her "job", so I can see where it comes from. But among the younger generation I think it's more common for women to work and so people more intuitively understand household things can't just be the women's responsibility anymore.

> When Bob doesn’t think something is necessary and Alice does, Bob needs to step back and think about why she does, because there’s generally a good reason

Again, privileging Alice's perspective. Why shouldn't Alice step back and wonder why Bob DOESN'T think something is necessary?

I agree that there are sometimes social consequences that will fall specifically on Alice for failing to keep her house in order. Similar social consequences will fall on Bob if he, for example, fails to keep a steady job. Society is a bitch, but that isn't Bob's fault.

I think Option 3 happens a lot, but Alice rarely tells Bob. Then when Alice loses patience and gets mad at Bob, it looks like she is freaking out over one single thing when the problem is more systemic.

This was really well said. I think all aspects of communication can be made clear by a a logical set of algorithms. Idea for a startup.. anyone?

Ethereum Smart Pre-nups?

Great break down. I applaud.

A game theoretical approach to household chores. Nice!

In my experience, you're wrong. See how that works? My wife simply doesn't care as strongly about the house as I do; nor about maintaining her car. Or family finances, grocery shopping, laundry, etc etc. For the first few years of our marriage, this was an issue. Then I learned that it was "my" issue to deal with. I had communicated as much as I could, and she didn't have the same expectations. So we compromised; she doesn't get mad when I stress about something, and I don't feel like it's her job to make me happy and cater to every feeling I have.

So that's my anecdote. Your comment is basically sexist blather.

We have hard data on gun violence, proving it's mostly a male problem. But "emotional labor" is both poorly defined and supported anecdotally, so the discussion around it is often driven by sexist stereotypes, as in this article.

Partners in a marriage - or a business, too - often disagree about who should do what. It's not one-sided as the article presents. Now, there might be some common patterns like, say, women reminding men of their families' birthdays (an example from the article) but there are many opposite-gendered patterns, like remembering to check the oil or air pressure in her car, etc. Note how just mentioning such stereotypes is already kind of sexist - it's saying something bad about a whole gender ("men don't care about details of family life", "women don't care about details of car maintenance").

Stereotypically, women get frustrated by some things their partners don't care as much about, and likewise men get frustrated by other things their partners don't care about. Focusing on the stereotypes isn't productive, though, and not just because they are often wrong.

"Since not caring enough to do the basic gruntwork associated with a decent relationship is almost always a male problem in our society,"

That's some hilarious hypocrisy.

>almost always a male problem

That is sexist.

So what bad things are women problems? Or is it just men...

It's weird that the Internet is the first place to say things like: "Maybe women don't WANT to be in tech", "there are biological differences", etc. but also turn around and complain that it's sexist to imply men (on average) have difficulties with emotional communication.

The word "want" describes desire, willingness, and a level of interest.

Saying someone or a group of people are not interested in doing something is entirely different than saying they are less capable.

The proper equivalent to "men (on average) have difficulties with emotional communication" for the example you gave would be "women are not as naturally capable as men when it comes to tech jobs."

Perhaps you're undervaluing the degree to which desire promotes skill. Maybe it's that men have difficulties with emotional communication because they don't have a desire to communicate emotionally and, thus, have not built up the skill set.

It's almost like the internet is a platform where many different voices are heard.

Or at least where many different voices are published. :)

The author provides several examples of emotional labor. The author also tries to explain to her husband (who she says he hasn't fully grasped) that she doesn't want him to clean the bathrooms for mere cleanliness, but for easing the burden of managing the cleanliness of the household.

She fails to understand how its not his fault that her standards are not being met, and that he's failing in his insubordinate duties by not meeting her standards - yet takes no responsibility for having adequately constructed a consensus between the two of them over the issue of household management - "because its the womans job to manage the household".

Sorry, but this is nonsense. Men are just as capable of having a clean house as anyone else - we ultimately succeed in having a great household 'emotionally' when all parties are of equal agency as each other. In this story, I see only un-equal agency, and I believe that is the true cause of her upset .. Let him decide on the standards for the household, independently and under his own determination, and stop undermining the relationship by assuming greater authority over the issue. Otherwise, you have totalitarianism in the household, and no man - nor woman - really deserves that.

Emotion itself is a communication platform and many times how you feel is not so easily communicated in ways that can be easily worked out.

> simply don't communicate with each other.

It takes two to communicate. That's the real emotional labour in the article: trying to communicate when the other party isn't listening.

Airing her grievances online is immature and isn't going to help their situation, there's a good chance her husband is going to get more defensive about it.

That tactical mistake notwithstanding, she's on the whole quite correct though.

She says:

> When my husband brushes out tangles before bedtime, he needs his efforts noticed and congratulated

That's such a common attitude. He needs to just do the damn work already without being such a baby about it.

Her complaint is that he needs to "see" work. Don't leave the gift wrap out in the middle of the room, but put it back. Hear a squeaky door hinge, just fix it. That kind of thing. The fact that he doesn't, and the fact that he needs to be told time and again, can of course be a source of stress. If he doesn't recognize that truly, then he's being obtuse. Most likely though, it all happens more in a grey zone. Not that he doesn't realize leaving the gift wrap out is an inconvenience, but that he doesn't care enough to put it back. Not necessarily because of malice, but this soup of lazyness, unattentiveness, and perhaps, every once in a while, a smidgen of malice, you know, that little urge to needle other people sometime, especially nagging ones.

It really isn't much about failure of communication. From the article, they talked about it plenty. It's in a national publication now. He knows she wants him to be proactive, instead of wait-and-see. It's about a mismatch between habits and expectations. There are many ways this can resolve. Either she learns to live with it. Or he changes. Either of those could both be happy solutions to their issue, with both parties finding contentment. But his half-assed approach of 'well, just ask me, I'm happy to do it", and then gloat or moan about it afterwards, is obviously not doing it.

>there's a good chance her husband is going to get more defensive about it.

She complains in the article that her husband gets defensive in these conversations - odds are she's simply can't see how her speech gets perceived as an attack. Especially because she very quickly blames Patriarchy for his defensiveness rather than taking an honest look at communication patterns.

Example:

>My husband, despite his good nature and admirable intentions, still responds to criticism in a very patriarchal way. Forcing him to see emotional labor for the work it is feels like a personal attack on his character.

Criticizing someone to force them to see things your way is completely unacceptable to me. I might have high standards for personality in a life partner, but yeah, no, I'd rather be single than put up with that.