Why are men so entitled to emotional labour from women?

[Trent]

OK, this is a broad generalisation. Since I’ve moved from Canada to The Netherlands, Im utterly shocked that literally 99% of the men I’ve met, fully expected me to put in the emotional labour (carrying the conversation, being polite, explaining, answering, asking questions about them.. you know the shit) without them even noticing, acknowledging and let alone appreciating or, dear Jesus, even reciprocating any of it back to me. They’d just treat me like I dont exist, matter or that they are completely superior.

I just wanna say, Im disgusted and exhausted.

Is it the pandemic? Is it the old patriarchy systems running deep in Europe? Is it lack of general emotional intelligence? Like wtf is this?

edit: I dont think this is just a Dutch issue. Just because it’s “cultural thing” it doesn’t mean it’s not toxic. But I also agree, I should care less what others think.

edit II: ok, turned out I need an advice on how not to be a people-pleaser. thanks for keeping me in check

Discussion

[aHoNevaGetCo]

I am a trans masc non-binary person that dates other trans masc and NB people and occasionally cis gay men as well. There’s a lot of reasons I could speculate, but it seems to come down to people are self absorbed so if you give them a chance to just talk about themselves they will and many won’t reciprocate. I’d rather be lonely than feeding someone’s ego who is uninterested in me as a person. I usually try to carry a conversation as normal asking about likes and interests then if I noticed they haven’t asked a single thing back I just stop messaging and unsurprisingly that’s where it all ends. I spend lots of time in my childhood being agreeable to toxic or even abusive people and I just don’t care to continue

[sadbear424]

Because all of us (men and women) are taught that emotional labor is not real labor (it is) and that even if emotional labor is work, women are naturally better at it and love it so much that they don’t mind doing it.

Fuck that shit!

I’m sorry you’re having to deal with it, OP. I can’t speak to your specific location, but this attitude is everywhere.

[Ritsuka77]

Damn gurl, sorry you are having a hard time. I believe the reason being is a combination of all you mentioned. We Men have becomed very high maintenance *starts styling his wig*

[Available-Egg-2380]

I think most men I’ve dealt with are like that. I get the overwhelming impression they’re only waiting for their turn to talk when I’m talking. However, when I stop holding up the conversation/ relationship/ whatever they are suddenly very interested and endearing only to revert back to whatever once they sense things are back to where they want them. It’s an ugly manipulation tactic that I’m not sure they are aware they’re using.

[mickjackx]

We think we are entitled to credit, and merit for everything we won’t actually put in the work to earn.
Patriarchy killed everything suggesting otherwise.

[onlypositiveresponse]

Everyone here talking about emotional labor like its a well know thing.
So I looked it up, turns out it is a well known thing. And has been for quite a while.

So I have a bit of reading to do now.

[Lmrb19]

Sounds like a societal problem that has been accepted into the Netherland’s culture which is NOT ok. It’s hard NOT being a people pleaser. You can do it!

[FloffySnurfles]

Ive lived in the netherlands for 2 years and found that the dutch can be surprisingly xenophobic with non-dutch people. Especially ironic when theyre xenophobic of Canadians. Men, in general, are trash, no matter where you are, so add trashiness to xenophobia and its an extra toxic mix.

[FrankyJuicebox]

This isn’t everyone, like you said. I think the big issue (and it’s not an excuse) is the way most men were raised up until around 2010. Things from there started getting better with everything race equality, sexuality, and gender roles. Less “be a man” and traditional values, ect. I think men born 2000 (me included) are taught from an early age how to act and it was not correct. You’ll always get the few odd ones out in any generation, like not everyone is going to be respectful of others beliefs or color of their skin or even gender. That being said I think that we find value in the people we surround ourselves with. Not saying at all it’s something you’re doing but maybe you have to branch out and get out of your comfort zone to find that change. No matter what stay safe and do what makes you happy.

[Custard_Tart_Addict]

Maybe they just aren’t into us.

[LargePiece]

Broad generalisations have limitations irrespective of their merit but there are some problems unrelated to this with your reasoning. I suspect you are more than likely having a vent and while I don’t want to unfairly over-analyse your claims, it might be that identifying and addressing the gaps in your reasoning could result in the support of alternative, less frustrating conclusions. Firstly, the concept of emotional labour is subjective which makes it problematic as a measure of conversational effort. Secondly, you don’t explain the jump you make from a list of desirable conversational moves to the claim that disproportionate undertaking of them constitutes unreciprocated emotional labour. And thirdly, you make an untested assumption about the expectations held by other parties in conversations which stems, in part, from the second problem.

It seems reasonable to suggest that conversational moves such as being polite, explaining, answering and asking questions of the other party can foster good conversation. You don’t directly state this but do make the claim that undertaking these moves is emotional labour and that it is problematic if they remain unreciprocated. One issue with this is that the concept of emotional labour is subjective. I don’t mean this in a negative sense, just that at a given point in a conversation different people will experience different emotions which means applying the equitable undertaking of emotional labour as a measure of conversational effort will result in varied evaluations across individuals. For example, one person may experience the content or style of a particular conversation as involving a different emotional cost to another. Or one party may experience asking questions as incurring emotional cost while another may not and perhaps may even experience answering questions as emotionally costly. If any of these people were to identify the total emotional labour necessary for a given conversation, it seems likely they would reach different conclusions. In practice, the subjectivity of the concept may also contribute to others not recognising the emotional labour you are undertaking in conversation, not because the emotional labour isn’t a real phenomenon but because it’s difficult for others to be aware of how much you may be expending if they do not experience a conversation as incurring as much, or any, emotional cost irrespective of relative effort.

I think a bigger problem with your reasoning however is that you jump from identifying desirable conversational moves to characterising them as emotional labour without explaining how they might incur an emotional cost. You might, for example, make the argument that expending emotional energy is necessary in the case of a ‘politeness’ move where one suspends spontaneous emotion and expresses another in its place. This would be the case when another party makes an inappropriate joke and we choose to express amusement instead of disapproval. The link with emotional labour seems likely to be different for each of the conversational moves you list though so explanations would help for each of them. Eventually, I suspect, the problem with that line of argument will be that while a case can be made for an emotional cost as a result of executing various conversational moves, I don’t think a good argument can be made that those moves will always require emotional labour or that the required amount does not vary for different people and in different conversational contexts. Either way however, you do not attempt to identify any potential links between conversational moves and emotional labour. I think that giving some further thought to these links is important to better understand the validity of a consideration of inequitable emotional labour.

Another problem with your claim is to do with how we (usually covertly) attribute the motivations of others in conversation and that these attributions can be faulty. Our own motivations in conversation can be many and varied, some of which we might be conscious of while others may not be so obvious to us. Additionally, I would suggest that we have different motivations in different conversations and consequently that our expectations of conversations also vary depending on who we’re talking to and in what circumstances. The untested assumption you have made is that the Dutch men you have conversed with have an expectation that you (as the other party) should undertake emotional labour. While this could be true, it may be actually the case that some (or even none) of them had this expectation. Others have suggested that this assumption may be inaccurate due to cultural differences but I’d suggest that while there may be useful generalisations to be made across cultures it’s more useful to consider that expectations of conversations are likely to vary significantly across individuals in any context regardless of culture or demographics. One person, for example, may have limited expectations of other parties in conversations while others from the same culture or group may have quite specific expectations of what a conversation should entail in regard to individual efforts. The claim has even been made that the responsibility to terminate any conversation that fails to meet expectations rests with the individual who holds those expectations. This seems like a tidy solution and while it addresses the problem of having to predict the expectations of others it may not be an adequate underlying principle for really good quality conversation as it doesn’t demand reciprocity. And responding in kind, when someone expends effort in a way which enhances a conversation, must surely be a candidate for a principle of good conversation. This seems somewhat consistent with your expectation that others will expend similar levels of effort in a conversation which I agree with in a broad sense.

I’m not trying to be argumentative for the sake of it. Indeed, I think it’s likely that some of the individuals you have engaged in conversation may well have expected you to expend disproportionate effort and that it may be possible to characterise this as emotional labour in some circumstances. It’s important to recognise however, that any undisclosed assumptions we carry about others’ expectations may be faulty when they are based solely on our own preconceived expectations. Obviously our expectations of conversations (or any context) is the starting point for all of us but it is limiting if we imagine our case to apply identically to others. One reason this point could be worth your consideration is that the second conclusion you describe in your edits about advice on choosing not to be a people pleaser is also underpinned by your potentially faulty assumption about the conversational expectations of others. This assumption then drives another assumption that one party expending disproportionate emotional labour may be pleasing for the other. When I’m in a conversation in which it becomes apparent that I haven’t been doing enough work, I usually experience embarrassment and a sense of disappointment in myself at having failed to contribute to a good conversation.

I think that good conversation requires, at a minimum, significant effort and concentration. Both these are required because listening carefully to what others are saying and trying to understand what they might mean all contribute to good decisions about how we might best contribute to the quality of the conversation. Perhaps this is similar to what you mean by ‘carrying’ a conversation. I think a simpler and better argument for why people should endeavour to execute the desirable conversational moves you’ve listed is because when done well, they can all make for higher quality conversation. If we’re not asking questions of the other party because we are genuinely interested in their experiences and what they think, for example, why are we engaging in conversation at all? There are less useful motivations for conversational moves, such as questioning to lead someone else to a previously devised conclusion or to illustrate the flaws in their thinking, but I’d suggest these do not typically foster a conversation that should be considered high quality. In short, I agree with your list of desirable conversational moves but not your assertion that the emotional labour required to execute them can be usefully compared across people or be a proxy for conversational effort.

I think it is clear that people have varied levels of skill and commitment in regard to good conversation. When encountering others who are lacking in conversational skills we may well decide it’s not worth the necessary labour to foster a good conversation. It’s worth considering however, that while conversations with individuals with limited skills and/or motivation can be more taxing, they can also sometimes be useful because experiences in such situations often illustrate principles of effective conversation better than those in which the other party is skilled and committed. Also, when measuring our own performance, if we succeed in upholding the principles of good conversation perhaps we also have the right to feel proud to have strived for a higher goal especially in situations where the other party made a shithouse effort (if you’re excuse my Australasianism).

[[deleted]]

[removed]