There’s also an upside to engaging in all this labor that women are stuck with. It connects you. In tiny ways throughout the day, doing this work weaves you into the fabric of other people’s lives. It connects you to your own kids when you know who their dentist is, how they respond the experience of going to the dentist, what movie was playing in the waiting room. It connects you to your wife when you know what shirts can’t go in the dryer and why she really doesn’t want that sweater to shrink. You only learn these little things by participating in the drudgery of day to day living. But that participation in the small things is an “in”- and it goes beyond the nuclear family. Knowing who is about to have a baby and needs support with meal prep, whose parent is gravely ill and needs their lawn mowed is an in for connection. Maybe you don’t become best bros with the neighbor but you have one more connection to your community, one more person to talk to, one more thread connecting you to humanity. It takes work to pay attention to these things, but connection is a powerful upside.
Unfortunately peddling "two sides," and "both sides," without ever presenting the third options continues to be a cultural faltering point. Third parties can't win! people decry. Well instead of disparaging against it, how about rallying behind it? The more people do THAT, the more they have a chance. But it is NOT about political party, it's really not at all (don't get stuck in loops here), it's about the option C of culture. It's about value systems of violence vs. co-created spaces of community freedom. It's about education and willingness to stop blaming while taking action at the same time. It's about not looking for saviors and start being part of each other in healthy ways. It's about recognizing the traumas and healing them. It's about rebalancing the scales and not letting rich men isolate the poor man into the racist tropes of blame and bitterness. Men gotta be willing to step into the self-reflection, rather than look for a scapegoat.
It feels like the only thing that could solve this is finally happening; women are not committing to men who don’t do the work. We should raise boys to understand that marriage and family are a privilege you earn by your actions. Hold men accountable from the beginning of the relationship.
Studying same-sex relationships makes this so clear.
Great conversation to have. Lots to work through 😊 Lots of commentary around most of it so I'll narrow in on one thing that jumped out at me, and while it might be semantic, I do think it matters. And it's the discussion around men needing to help out around the house to save our relationships - that's an external motivation (albeit a good one!). But I think division of labour in a shared household is an accountability thing - an internal motivator. Saving our relationships means that if our relationship wasn't in trouble then we might not ever share the responsibility. By teaching and showing men that their accountability does not end when they finish their paid work, I believe we're building better men. *And* a symptom of learning accountability will be a better relationship. Not sure if I'm making sense or if this level of detail necessarily matters, but it *is* something that come to mind every time I hear people talking about saving one's relationship. Either way, thank you again for creating a space for having conversation!
It’s so interesting how personal this topic is. My husband does 3/4 of our house things. Cooking, cleaning, bill paying… but I do 90% of kid stuff. I still completely resonate with my girl friends whose partners slack in the house department. I think the actionable things are great but the underlying need for deep emotional connection around overwhelm is so important. We can both be over functioning and overwhelmed but how we support each other through it (or dont) is everything. I completely agree that the underlying problem is capitalism, or more specifically the extractive and exploitative individualistic mindset that underlies capitalism. It makes life harder for all the reasons you said and when it carries over to the house, it feels unfair no matter what the share of chores is.
If someone does nearly everything in a transactional and extractive manner, you’ll still feel used and disrespected
Couldn’t agree more that this conversation tends to be nuanced and there’s no “right answer” in my case I tend to carry most of the domestic labor because I stay at home while my husband works. It was very unequal when our kids were babies but we are finding a rhythm and many come to Jesus talks to find balance. You are so right when you say the issue is much bigger than just domestic labor. It’s systemic and I agree we need political leaders willing to stand up for humanity instead of prioritizing their own interests.
Bravo for this post but it irks me quite a bit that the focus seems to be on US culture when this pattern exists cross-culturally. This is a patriarchal issue for sure, systemic definitely but there's fundamentally no point in waiting for help from the top (not what I'm saying you're advocating). Reformation happens at the grassroots with the people. More and more women are just giving up and sometimes that is what it takes for change to happen - when the realisation hits, it can sometimes come too late for this generation but save the next.
I agree there are systemic things, as you point to, that need to change. It also needs to be acknowledged that women predominately lead the fight to create that systemic change AND we carry the work in those systems --- childcare is a predominately female workforce, for example. Paid leave, while necessary, still often leads the woman in the household from using the time moreso than men. These are 💯 policies that we need -- and I've dedicated my career to fighting for them --- but we also just generally challenge patriarchical thinking, practices and policies and do so directly. It's bad for everyone. We must stop operating as those we are trying to win a zero sum game.
You could add to the list, polyamory, in all its forms. It’s a way to make care tasks more equitable and also encourage healthier boundaries around emotional labour. Though I am not in a polyamorous relationship, I have lived in community and this requires a lot more intentional communication which is good for everyone. Have you written about how the nuclear family is an invented financial system designed to keep women and gender-diverse people disempowered?
The whole division of labour and gender is a way to keep hierarchy in place. I know you have written about capitalism’s grip on our lives and I believe you have explored socialist government’s who provide a basic income to everyone. I see UBI as the best way to equalize resources under capitalism. Especially when you add in the hidden layers of disability, race and sexual orientation.
Currently, in Canada and the US, people who live with disabilities are penalized financially if they are in a romantic relationship. Even though Canadians have a slight social safety net, it is not nearly enough to survive on.
And we must always keep the bourgeoisie class including the police (who are class traitors) in the forefront of our conversations - as you did. Any system that allows these classes to exist let alone make decisions is deeply, deeply corrupt.
Nothing short of a labour movement, mass revolt will turn the tables.
They can't stop you from being in a romantic relationship but from my understanding in addition to the "marriage penalty" some benefit systems won't allow you to live with a partner, or a roommate in general. So basically they require homelessness..
Also, on women’s labor being excluded from GDP, see Caroline Criado Perez’s Invisible Women. That was a choice economists made because calculating it was too hard. But if all unpaid caregiving and household work were to disappear, you can bet the economy would cease to function.
Supporting women and children from the earliest stage possible supports ALL of humankind. Asking women and children, listening, and believing them is where all of us, and the systems we function in, are failing.
“I think all of those things at the same time. I don’t think one of them is the only right way to approach this crisis facing so many relationships and families.”
I think you did an excellent job in one article sketching the nature of this problem at both a macro and micro level. But like the correlatives in physics there is no universal theory of how these things work, much less how to perceive and fix the problem.
At the micro level - in relationships - we need to learn to NEGOTIATE around cultural norms and beliefs that are so ingrained we can’t see them. (I’d love it if you wrote an article about THAT with your therapist hat on).
At the macro level we need that “transformational” perspective shift away from the patriarchal/patronizing and capitalist view of social frameworks. I’m not convinced personally that the solution is a traditional socialist framework but definitely we need more of those values and frames than we have today!
All that together is HUGE. no wonder you struggle with bringing them together. Thanks for sticking with the effort to do so, however. Definitely advances the thinking in my view.
Would be great if men could 1. Start by recognizing that caregiving and household operations and emotional labor are work in every way job-work is, other than being paid; 2. Recognize that they are taking advantage of and benefiting from the uncompensated work of their women partners, which is an exploitative stance, not a loving one. Yes capitalism wants us to work too hard in our jobs AND it also depends on keeping invisible all the domestic and caregiving work mostly women do. We need to be able to do less Job-Work AND Not-Job Work, and distribute Not-Job more equitably so everyone has a chance of making space in their lives for Not-Work, and hence, balance.
Reading your article, I thought to myself that you will be attacked, at least in the US for being a c-word. Noting one of the comments, and their use of the terms bourgeoisie and class traitor, that feeling is reinforced. I keep having to remind myself of Nietzsche’s comment about fighting monsters risks becoming one in the process.
Dominion, of the capitalist/imperialist form is the first story in the 7 stories (see link below). Revolution is the second story, and usually only changes who is in charge, who gets all the pie, not how fairly distributed it is.
While we absolutely do need to do something, urgently, let’s try to learn from the failures of the c-word revolutions in the 20th century and not replace one form of tyranny with another.
There’s also an upside to engaging in all this labor that women are stuck with. It connects you. In tiny ways throughout the day, doing this work weaves you into the fabric of other people’s lives. It connects you to your own kids when you know who their dentist is, how they respond the experience of going to the dentist, what movie was playing in the waiting room. It connects you to your wife when you know what shirts can’t go in the dryer and why she really doesn’t want that sweater to shrink. You only learn these little things by participating in the drudgery of day to day living. But that participation in the small things is an “in”- and it goes beyond the nuclear family. Knowing who is about to have a baby and needs support with meal prep, whose parent is gravely ill and needs their lawn mowed is an in for connection. Maybe you don’t become best bros with the neighbor but you have one more connection to your community, one more person to talk to, one more thread connecting you to humanity. It takes work to pay attention to these things, but connection is a powerful upside.
Man here. Most men don't realize how much better their relationships can be when they step up to the plate. I strive for equal exhaustion! ;)
Thanks man.
Unfortunately peddling "two sides," and "both sides," without ever presenting the third options continues to be a cultural faltering point. Third parties can't win! people decry. Well instead of disparaging against it, how about rallying behind it? The more people do THAT, the more they have a chance. But it is NOT about political party, it's really not at all (don't get stuck in loops here), it's about the option C of culture. It's about value systems of violence vs. co-created spaces of community freedom. It's about education and willingness to stop blaming while taking action at the same time. It's about not looking for saviors and start being part of each other in healthy ways. It's about recognizing the traumas and healing them. It's about rebalancing the scales and not letting rich men isolate the poor man into the racist tropes of blame and bitterness. Men gotta be willing to step into the self-reflection, rather than look for a scapegoat.
I'm so with you!
It feels like the only thing that could solve this is finally happening; women are not committing to men who don’t do the work. We should raise boys to understand that marriage and family are a privilege you earn by your actions. Hold men accountable from the beginning of the relationship.
Studying same-sex relationships makes this so clear.
Great conversation to have. Lots to work through 😊 Lots of commentary around most of it so I'll narrow in on one thing that jumped out at me, and while it might be semantic, I do think it matters. And it's the discussion around men needing to help out around the house to save our relationships - that's an external motivation (albeit a good one!). But I think division of labour in a shared household is an accountability thing - an internal motivator. Saving our relationships means that if our relationship wasn't in trouble then we might not ever share the responsibility. By teaching and showing men that their accountability does not end when they finish their paid work, I believe we're building better men. *And* a symptom of learning accountability will be a better relationship. Not sure if I'm making sense or if this level of detail necessarily matters, but it *is* something that come to mind every time I hear people talking about saving one's relationship. Either way, thank you again for creating a space for having conversation!
It’s so interesting how personal this topic is. My husband does 3/4 of our house things. Cooking, cleaning, bill paying… but I do 90% of kid stuff. I still completely resonate with my girl friends whose partners slack in the house department. I think the actionable things are great but the underlying need for deep emotional connection around overwhelm is so important. We can both be over functioning and overwhelmed but how we support each other through it (or dont) is everything. I completely agree that the underlying problem is capitalism, or more specifically the extractive and exploitative individualistic mindset that underlies capitalism. It makes life harder for all the reasons you said and when it carries over to the house, it feels unfair no matter what the share of chores is.
If someone does nearly everything in a transactional and extractive manner, you’ll still feel used and disrespected
Couldn’t agree more that this conversation tends to be nuanced and there’s no “right answer” in my case I tend to carry most of the domestic labor because I stay at home while my husband works. It was very unequal when our kids were babies but we are finding a rhythm and many come to Jesus talks to find balance. You are so right when you say the issue is much bigger than just domestic labor. It’s systemic and I agree we need political leaders willing to stand up for humanity instead of prioritizing their own interests.
Bravo for this post but it irks me quite a bit that the focus seems to be on US culture when this pattern exists cross-culturally. This is a patriarchal issue for sure, systemic definitely but there's fundamentally no point in waiting for help from the top (not what I'm saying you're advocating). Reformation happens at the grassroots with the people. More and more women are just giving up and sometimes that is what it takes for change to happen - when the realisation hits, it can sometimes come too late for this generation but save the next.
I agree there are systemic things, as you point to, that need to change. It also needs to be acknowledged that women predominately lead the fight to create that systemic change AND we carry the work in those systems --- childcare is a predominately female workforce, for example. Paid leave, while necessary, still often leads the woman in the household from using the time moreso than men. These are 💯 policies that we need -- and I've dedicated my career to fighting for them --- but we also just generally challenge patriarchical thinking, practices and policies and do so directly. It's bad for everyone. We must stop operating as those we are trying to win a zero sum game.
You could add to the list, polyamory, in all its forms. It’s a way to make care tasks more equitable and also encourage healthier boundaries around emotional labour. Though I am not in a polyamorous relationship, I have lived in community and this requires a lot more intentional communication which is good for everyone. Have you written about how the nuclear family is an invented financial system designed to keep women and gender-diverse people disempowered?
The whole division of labour and gender is a way to keep hierarchy in place. I know you have written about capitalism’s grip on our lives and I believe you have explored socialist government’s who provide a basic income to everyone. I see UBI as the best way to equalize resources under capitalism. Especially when you add in the hidden layers of disability, race and sexual orientation.
Currently, in Canada and the US, people who live with disabilities are penalized financially if they are in a romantic relationship. Even though Canadians have a slight social safety net, it is not nearly enough to survive on.
And we must always keep the bourgeoisie class including the police (who are class traitors) in the forefront of our conversations - as you did. Any system that allows these classes to exist let alone make decisions is deeply, deeply corrupt.
Nothing short of a labour movement, mass revolt will turn the tables.
They can't stop you from being in a romantic relationship but from my understanding in addition to the "marriage penalty" some benefit systems won't allow you to live with a partner, or a roommate in general. So basically they require homelessness..
Also, on women’s labor being excluded from GDP, see Caroline Criado Perez’s Invisible Women. That was a choice economists made because calculating it was too hard. But if all unpaid caregiving and household work were to disappear, you can bet the economy would cease to function.
Invisible Women was an eye-opening book.
Supporting women and children from the earliest stage possible supports ALL of humankind. Asking women and children, listening, and believing them is where all of us, and the systems we function in, are failing.
“I think all of those things at the same time. I don’t think one of them is the only right way to approach this crisis facing so many relationships and families.”
I think you did an excellent job in one article sketching the nature of this problem at both a macro and micro level. But like the correlatives in physics there is no universal theory of how these things work, much less how to perceive and fix the problem.
At the micro level - in relationships - we need to learn to NEGOTIATE around cultural norms and beliefs that are so ingrained we can’t see them. (I’d love it if you wrote an article about THAT with your therapist hat on).
At the macro level we need that “transformational” perspective shift away from the patriarchal/patronizing and capitalist view of social frameworks. I’m not convinced personally that the solution is a traditional socialist framework but definitely we need more of those values and frames than we have today!
All that together is HUGE. no wonder you struggle with bringing them together. Thanks for sticking with the effort to do so, however. Definitely advances the thinking in my view.
Would be great if men could 1. Start by recognizing that caregiving and household operations and emotional labor are work in every way job-work is, other than being paid; 2. Recognize that they are taking advantage of and benefiting from the uncompensated work of their women partners, which is an exploitative stance, not a loving one. Yes capitalism wants us to work too hard in our jobs AND it also depends on keeping invisible all the domestic and caregiving work mostly women do. We need to be able to do less Job-Work AND Not-Job Work, and distribute Not-Job more equitably so everyone has a chance of making space in their lives for Not-Work, and hence, balance.
Reading your article, I thought to myself that you will be attacked, at least in the US for being a c-word. Noting one of the comments, and their use of the terms bourgeoisie and class traitor, that feeling is reinforced. I keep having to remind myself of Nietzsche’s comment about fighting monsters risks becoming one in the process.
Dominion, of the capitalist/imperialist form is the first story in the 7 stories (see link below). Revolution is the second story, and usually only changes who is in charge, who gets all the pie, not how fairly distributed it is.
While we absolutely do need to do something, urgently, let’s try to learn from the failures of the c-word revolutions in the 20th century and not replace one form of tyranny with another.
https://www.theseventhstory.com/paperback