Discussion about this post

User's avatar
LoWa's avatar

Meh I don’t agree with the “both sidesing” this bit implies “The women feel taken advantage of and exhausted. The men feel micromanaged and checked out.”

When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. Men’s feelings of being “controlled” are not equivalent (or even legitimate) compared to women’s feelings of being used as an appliance, taken for granted, exhausted, frustrated.

Eg if men’s norm is talking 80% of the time and women talking 20%, when men are asked to make it more equal, they end up with 70-30 - this feels “equal” to them. And they might feel “oh so oppressed” when asked to make it 60-40 or god forbid 50-50. Because their norm is so skewed. But their feelings of “oppression” at being asked to go 60-40 are objectively not valid. They are not in fact being oppressed. There’s various studies of men and women’s talking time to this effect.

Men’s feelings and actions arise from general laziness that heterosexual privilege affords them. Why not think about all the emotional labour / household labour? Because that’s “women’s work.” And dismissing it as such gives men the right to put their feet up and not have to do it AND to feel entitled about feeling “so oppressed” by his meany mean wife who is asking him to do better AND to feel entitled to some sympathy / empathy for his sorry position.

Why should I give any credence to the dude’s feelings when they arise from his belief that he is innately superior, his time and life and just worth more than the woman’s etc? Why should any woman bother empathising with her abuser who is stealing her time and life on a daily basis? Who is buying his free time with her exhaustion?

This is the problem with this article:

1. The article first “both sides” the argument as if both parties’ feelings and needs must be given equal consideration or be considered equally legitimately (instead of questioning the messed up beliefs that the guy’s feelings arise from)

2. The article reinforces this by talking about the feedback loop that is self-reinforcing, as if both partners are (equally) to blame.

3. The article pretends it will recognise that men hold power therefore men have the ability to move this dynamic to a more equitable position in the subheading “Men need to make up for the imbalance.”

4. But then the article goes on to pretty much talk about how the author is “not like other men,” and how terrible it is that women are socialised to take care of others and men must recognise the “societal pressure” that women are under…which all feels like it’s blaming women for shouldering the burden too much. Rather than challenging men why they think they are entitled to have free head space.

5. Then in the para that does finally talk about what men should “do”, there’s actually very little doing to be seen. It’s all about “checking in” with the partner, “talking” about collaborating and coordinating, “think[ing] of” responsibilities etc. C’mon folks. Men are masters of talking endlessly in circles as a substitute for actually doing any work (including mental / emotional labour / management work).

6. Then we have a brief foray into men needing to get in touch with their feelings, their partner’s feelings, set “boundaries” and “communicate their needs” - pointless advice in a world where men are already excellent at setting de facto boundaries by not doing anything at all and threatening or ignoring their partners when they raise issues, and where the whole world is set up to cater to men’s needs…Again, more feelings talk rather than actually just doing the work!

7. And then finally the article further absolves men for actually doing stuff by pointing out that hey, the system is the problem! We need systems change! Capitalism is to blame! Um hello? We’ve had like 3000 years of patriarchy well before capitalism got going.

8. And the article ends by centering men and pointing out how much men are “struggling” and exhausted too. And how they could really use some R&R. And implied is if we fix capitalism, we could all get more free time and support. Not so fast, folks: we actually need to smash the patriarchy and do away with men’s entitlement to women’s bodies, minds, lives, futures. Because all that pre-dates capitalism.

The problem seems to be that in trying to appeal to men, the article is being too “nice”, which is to say, cosying up to power (men), rather than calling a spade a spade and centering women in a world where men are constantly centred. It goes too easy on men, and risks letting them off the hook. It avoids the big hairy issues of “power,” “entitlement”, “abuse.” In fact, other than a cursory nod to Zawn Villines’ extensive work on these themes, it hardly even mentions these three words.

Expand full comment
Diana van Eyk's avatar

Just a related comment: A friend and I discovered that most women feel exhausted when we're in a relationship.

And I don't just blame the men. Speaking just for myself, I glide into a role so subconsciously that I don't even realize how much more I'm doing.

Also, male privilege is so visible in relationships. Women are blamed for so much, even when men are the responsible party sometimes but almost never have to shoulder the blame.

Expand full comment
70 more comments...

No posts