[gyardley]

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.

[didgeoridoo]

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?

[gyardley]

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.

[klipt]

> 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.

[losvedir]

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.

[didgeoridoo]

> 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.

[saint_fiasco]

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.

[swat535]

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?

[saint_fiasco]

Ethereum Smart Pre-nups?

[vkhorikov]

Great break down. I applaud.

[philbarr]

A game theoretical approach to household chores. Nice!

[greedo]

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.

[brighteyes]

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.

[alexssung]

"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.

[mmjaa]

>almost always a male problem

That is sexist.

[tpallarino]

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

[oijoinoifsnf]

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.

[turc1656]

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."

[toasterlovin]

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.

[dleslie]

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

[sblom]

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