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.
Hi Lowa, thanks for reading and commenting. I’ve been following along with the conversation. I’ve felt nervous to insert myself before I could gather my feelings and thoughts. I’m still feeling a little messy about it, but I wanted to chime in. I have two main reactions:
First, the story in my head after reading your comments is that my life experience and perspective aren’t worthwhile for you to be curious about and what you’re looking for is for me to do exactly what you say. I’m curious if that’s how you feel. If so, that doesn’t feel good to me and makes me want to pull away (which I’m okay with but would rather move toward connection with you). The point of my newsletter is precisely to center men’s experiences and do so to try to convince more men to join in feminist struggle against patriarchal capitalism.
Second, my hunch is that we’ll likely have to agree to disagree. I think it has to do with our different theories of change, but I’m curious how this lands with you. My read of your comments is that you believe change happens by convincing enough individual men to do the work. My belief is that change mostly happens through movements engaging in political and economic struggle. I do think men have to do the work, but I strongly believe based on my experience as a therapist and as a member of the labor movement that people won’t do anything if they don’t see that it’s in their interest to do so. I believe people change and take action because of common interests and solidarity, not shaming, punishing, or disciplining them. In my work with clients and inside my own inner system, shame keeps people stuck. It literally shuts down the nervous system (which is a little of what I felt reading you quote my writing in your comments in what felt like a mocking way). I do in fact think patriarchy hurts men too (while still giving us advantages over women and other marginalized genders). And this might be a surprise to you based on one of your comments, but I think white supremacy hurts white people too. I modeled this newsletter after an organization I’ve been involved with called White Awake, which educates and organizes white people to fight racism not only because it will help POC, but precisely because it will also help white people.
This feels a little petty, but I want to mention that I came to this perspective by interacting with and reading primarily women: the psychologist Tara Brach; abolitionists like Miriame Kaba and Derecka Purnell; and socialist feminists like Silvia Federici, Nancy Fraser, and Tithi Bhattacharya. I’m not one to recommend that you read something if not asked, but I do recommend their work.
Thanks for commenting, Jeremy. I was curious about your read of this discussion.
I agree that racism also hurts white people and patriarchy also hurts men. These systems prevent all of us from reaching our full human potential.
I also agree that shame alone doesn’t motivate people to change. I think mass movements + recognition of one’s own role in the problem + fighting for improvement in all of our spheres are all needed to contribute to this change. So we need to work on a societal level, as well as the institutional, family and individual levels.
Because, since we women usually see and experience these struggles only in our own relationships and households, it is a deeply personal struggle, and there’s something inherently unsatisfying about the idea that suffering for women happens at an individual/personal level but men get to speak about it in higher level terms as if it had nothing to do with them.
That’s the thinking that allows men to call themselves feminists and at the same time exploit their partners, family members, employees, and coworkers.
We are angry because we have been taken advantage of, and our anger is justified, and I think it’s important that men understand that in a palpable rather than a merely theoretical way. Yep, it’s uncomfortable. It’s also uncomfortable for me as a white person to face up to my own racism. But I am not uncomfortable with the idea that others may be angry at me personally for my privilege, even though I am not personally responsible for systemic racism. Of course they are. It would be pretty weird if they weren’t. I need to be called out and reminded of it - otherwise how is my anti-racism put to the test? How can I be sure I’m not just talking the talk?
So if men feel shame about the status and experiences and suffering of women, should we not ask why they feel that way? What are they ashamed about, if they’ve done nothing wrong? And if men admit their role, and commit to change… then why would they continue to feel shame?
In response to feedback, your first comment is that you’re afraid that I’m not empathetic and curious about you and that I want you to do “exactly” as I say. That sounds like every sexist guy I’ve ever given feedback to - who feels “misunderstood” , “uncared for” and “controlled” (just like the title of your article) when a woman points out *his* problematic behaviour and offers some reasonable suggestions/requests – rather than really engaging with what the woman has to say or asking her any questions.
Given your feminist credentials, at this point all I could do was laugh. I wondered how you could possibly not have known how it would land.
The reason I stopped to comment was because of the content and execution of this article, which is the key issue that you haven’t engaged with. It’s not about you; your life experience; your background. To say that that’s the story you’re making up to me implies, “But I’m not like that, I’m a good guy, if you really knew me you would know…”
Well, if you really knew me…If you had a better grasp of what it’s like being a woman in relationships with men where we do the lion’s share of emotional and mental labour, it would be obvious to you why your article doesn’t read well. But you don’t, and that’s obvious.
Also a note on reviewers’ feedback. Writers get feedback all the time, this is why there’s a comments section. I’m judging the article, not you. An article should be judged on its own merits. Think about it. You’re a man writing about feminism. Why do I need to know your life story to be able to give useful feedback on a piece of your writing, on a topic that I know more about than you? A good article should read well and standalone in its own right. If it reflects badly on you, the problem is the article, not me and my lack of “curiosity” about you and your life.
As this conversation wore on, it was difficult not to judge you [in addition to judging the article] based on your actions and non-actions. You didn’t respond to my very first comment (while responding to others), you failed to intervene when a male commenter made sexist comments, you moreover “liked” his posts, your deafening silence as a bystander as the conversations went on, and then you finally commented at the behest of a female reader pointing out all this hypocrisy only to…ask me if I cared about YOU and your life experiences. Sigh.
1. You say that the “point of my newsletter is precisely to center men’s experiences and do so to try to convince more men to join in feminist struggle against patriarchal capitalism.”
Ahem. Men are excellent at centering themselves (like you just did in your response to me). Feminism is not about centering men, it’s about stopping harm against women - and not just “not harming” but actively nurturing women. As women have been doing for everyone for a long, long time. A more helpful goal would be that “the point of this newsletter is to help men centre women’s experiences and in doing so make men more effective in the feminist struggle for equality between the sexes…”
2. Systems change vs individual change
On theories of change, of COURSE I think that systems change is necessary *and* I also think men use it as a convenient excuse to get out of doing the work right in front of their noses: doing the dishes, folding the laundry, feeding pets. Do we really need systems change for men to start doing these things, right now, right this minute? Do we really need to wait for “systems change” for men to see women as full human beings whose time, worth, life is of equal significance to theirs? Do we need systems to change before men can magically be able to apply the skills they use everyday at work (multitasking, conflict resolution, organisation, planning) in the home?
You might say that, well, men need a bit of practice at emotional labour, some systems change in our economy, education, sports, politics, employment, etc could help. All I have to say to that is: maybe. Men are great at emotional labour in early stages of relationships. Listening to her, paying attention, asking her what she likes, delighting her, going out of his way to surprise her, staying up and we can watch whatever you want to watch (and meaning it), talking about feelings…
The reason so many women have so much resentment about this is because we KNOW men can do it because we’ve seen them do other so well in early stages of relationships. But they tap out just when the relationship is secure enough and “it’s not my job anymore”. But emotional labour is the backbone of relationships, not the entry fee. Men don’t need to go on a course, a journey, a retreat, or endless therapy to treat their partners like human beings that matter. They can do it right now, today.
After all, women live in the same ridiculous capitalist genocidal imperialist colonial ecocidal corporatocracy system…and they don’t need endless years of therapy and retreats and for the whole ‘system’ to change to see men as human beings who deserve love, care, affection, emotional support etc. Why should we wait until we’ve resolved the capitalist genocidal imperialist colonial ecocidal corporatocracy system for men to be thoughtful and kind and do emotional labour, when they can clearly be thoughtful and kind and do emotional labour just fine right now when it suits them (in the workplace, in early stages of dating). Why do we expect this work of women who live in the same ecocidal genocidal capitalist system but not of men (until the system changes) – isn’t that a double standard?
I’m talking about systems change in a deeper way – the shadow side of “systems change” rhetoric which can be weaponised to create more inertia and provide yet another excuse for men not to listen to, and take influence from, the women in front of their noses.
Also – tied to this is that I think each gender probably needs to do more of the opposite of what it’s socialised to. Men are taught to externalise (“it’s someone else’s fault” – therefore anger is an acceptable emotion). Women are taught to internalise (“omg this is totally my fault, how can I be more loving, caring, generous” – therefore shame/guilt/sadness are more acceptable emotions). Men need to stop blaming women and “the system” and start internalising more, taking responsibility and holding themselves accountable. Women should start externalising more and calling out men for their shitty, abusive behaviour, and leaving relationships at the first sign of BS.
3. “Patriarchy hurts men too,” “white supremacy hurts white people too.”
Bro, I know. That’s not the point. The point is the false equivalence of the statements “patriarchy harms women” and “patriarchy hurts men”. “Equivalent” literally means “equal in force, amount, value, function, purpose or qualities.” The harm women experience at the hands of patriarchy is not equivalent or comparable to the type and degree of harm that men experience.
The other point is – as N S noted, these contrary statements are often used to silence conversation and re-centre men and white people respectively, who are already centred. I could yell “ALL LIVES MATTER” from the rooftops and sure, ~technically~ it’s true, all lives do matter, and it’s inappropriate and taking away focus from what BIPOC folks experience all day, everyday. That’s why I can’t stomach your contrary statements when said in response to something I as a brown woman say.
I’m not saying “don’t talk about systems change or how patriarchy hurts men too”. I’m saying: be aware how you might inadvertently re-inscribe power dynamics by talking about them in ways that re-centre men and accidentally let them off the hook. Accountability is important. And - dare I say it - personal responsibility. Men are not lacking in agency entirely, at the whims of this mysterious "invisible hand" of the "system" that tosses them around - there's obvious stuff like feeding pets and thinking about the shopping list they can do right now, but choose not to.
4. “People won’t do anything unless it’s in their interests to do so.”
Nah. Not buying this one either. That suggests we must show men why feminism will benefit them before they do anything to benefit women. Have you been reading psychology from…the early twentieth century? Capitalist peeps? Have you not read anything on altruism / pro-social behaviour / ‘relational values’ in psychology (tragedy of the commons does not tend to occur in well-knit groups and nor bystander effect - both supposedly arising from our innate selfishness; pan-cultural studies show that pro-social values such as benevolence top the values hierarchy).
Have you ever loved a human so much that you would step between them and a bullet in a heartbeat? Without thinking?
For someone railing against the individualistic capitalist system, the view of men as innately and irrevocably selfish and therefore needing to be convinced feminism is in “their interests” (as a “utility maximising individual”) is a patriarchal white supremacist notion that you are suggesting we buy into…in order to…dismantle the capitalist patriarchy?!
What if it’s not in men’s interests to change but they should do so anyway because it makes the world a more loving, sane place? What if that means it in fact is in men’s interests to change? BOTH these questions are problematic because they centre men. The point of feminism isn’t to make men feel good about themselves, it is for men to stop harming women, make reparations for any harm done, and ideally actively nurture women. If you keep forgetting that or sidelining that, you’re going to end up doing more harm.
As men tend to have fragile male egos, literally anything that is constructive feedback can be read as "shaming, punishing and disciplining". As a woman I have turned myself INSIDE OUT to say my feelings and needs in the most palatable and nonviolent and gentle way to sexist men and they *still* centred themselves and said they felt "controlled" as a way to avoid listening or doing anything at all. Even old white dude Marshall Rosenberg's wife would tell him that he "could read demands into a rock." When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
If shame is, as Brene Brown says, "fear of loss of connection" then this implies that men are afraid of loss of connection when they feel ashamed by something women say. This is easily weaponised against women thus: you must show him you're there for him, kind, not disconnecting so he doesn’t feel shame so he connects with you in turn…Men’s shame is laid in women’s laps. Bleargh. I’m tired of cleaning up men’s messes. I don’t have time for your shame. We women – we don’t have time.
And consider this: sometimes change doesn’t happen because the oppressed cosied up to the oppressors and lovingly convinced them that change was in the *oppressor's* interests via “common interests and solidarity” and everyone marched off into the sunset happily together (nor because the oppressors went to ‘therapy’ and sorted their internal family systems out..). The French Revolution, the protests and strikes of Gandhi, the Civil War. Possibly the biggest cataclysms have required force and withdrawal.
Heterosexual intimacy is of course different because it’s characterised by deep intimacy between the sexes, which makes it more tangly. But still. Men don’t need to be convinced that feminism is good for them too. That’s just buying into a model of men that affirms their inherent selfishness and self-centredness and that we must pander to this at all costs. Men don’t need to feel like it’s “in THEIR interests” to treat women like humans; they need to do so because it’s in women’s interests. Ideally without force or withdrawal (divorce).
But what we’re seeing is an epidemic of women initiating divorces in countries where it’s legal to do so, which pretty much tells me all I need to know about men’s ability and willingness (or lack thereof) to treat women like an equal. Even though – everyone sane would say – it is in men’s interests to do emotional labour because they don’t end up dying alone, their health is better, their family doesn’t hate them etc etc. Men appear to be so clueless that they won’t even do things even when it IS in their interests to do so…
All that said, consider this: “Why are we [women] not in armed combat against you? It is not because there is no shortage of kitchen knives in this country. It is because we believe in your humanity, despite all the evidence.” – Andrea Dworkin.
“Your humanity” in this case means “your ability to fully see the humanity in others [women]” – which is the exact opposite of the capitalist “enlightened” self-interest that you are so bent on appealing to.
Hi, I'm wondering how you would approach things in real life, person to person situations. I happened on this article, and your comment, after a three hour conversation with my younger brother about this very issue. He's 23. He is deeply wounded by and slowly rethinking modern masculinity, while still also participating in it because it's all he knows. It's taking time. I love him dearly and want him to grow in this and do well. An article like Jeremy's seems ideal to send him, and even that might be a bit much for him to take just yet. Your comment would make him defensive, and I understand why. His feelings don't arise from his belief that he is "innately superior, his time and life and just worth more than the woman’s." He was conditioned a particular way, just like I--the only female child in the household--was conditioned in another. I see the conditioning as wrong, not the individual. If I were to make comments in the vein of yours to my brother, he would most likely shut down and/or get defensive. Honestly, I don't blame him. If he were to shut down then we wouldn't be able to move forward on this and hopefully create change for him and society. I care about him, so I'm willing to do the work to be loving and patient as he grapples with this, even if that seems "unfair" because I'm female and he's male.
Hi Ema, thanks for your question. I personally wouldn’t send this particular article to a younger brother if I had one because - as I’ve made abundantly clear (much to Jeremy’s and Clint’s discomfort, I imagine) — I don’t think this is a helpful article about household labour inequity. It doesn’t address the root causes of the problems and doesn’t offer any solutions that work. I think it has the potential to do more harm than good because it gives the appearance of being thoughtful, enlightened, vulnerable etc while leaving the actual problem unresolved.
Men are masters of doing this in relationships — trotting out mealy-mouthed excuses, waxing lyrical about therapy they are doing, or men’s groups they attend, or the “journey” they are on and “systemic issues”…as a substitute for doing any work at all. By sending him this article, you will likely just give him more reason to think of himself as a good person (because he’s reading a “good guy’s” articles), and more elaborate feminist words to throw around, while not really getting to the actual problem at hand.
If a man is really open to learning, he will seek out info that will challenge him, and make him feel uncomfortable. And he will be open to influence. My younger sister’s partner (26yo) picks up books like “Entitled: How male privilege hurts women” and “Fed up” and “Men explain things to me” off my bookshelf regularly. And he reads them! When my sister gives him feedback, he opens up his notes app on his phone and he takes notes. Literally. He listens to me talk at length and frankly about sexism in intimate relationships. And he doesn’t get defensive, hostile, proclaim he’s not like that or “not all men”. He too grew up in the same country as my sister and I which has the one of the highest rates of domestic violence in the OECD and a super macho bro male culture.
My dad who was socialised into masculinity in one of the countries with the most HORRIFIC types of violence against women (India), would be able to handle my direct feedback that he thought his time and life worth more than my mother’s, which is why she abandoned her career to take care of the kids and he treated her in super sexist ways. He can handle my directness because he is actually open to change and doing better. Even though he has experienced harm in other ways (racism), that doesn’t make him too “wounded” to want to do better (and actually *do* better) in the sexism department.
I am not indigenous to the country I now live in, but I regularly read work by indigenous authors, even when it’s free and frank, even if it challenges how I perceive and act in the world - because I want to do better and I know I have privilege that can cause harm.
There are probably areas in which you are privileged too but would be willing to really understand the perspective of the less privileged (whether it be across class, racial, ability or other lines), including through books, films, courses - even if it makes you uncomfortable. Because you know that the discomfort you feel reading about someone’s pain is not equivalent to the actual horrific things they experienced that caused them pain.
I note you centre your brother’s “woundedness” in your comment. The implication is that he is fragile, too delicate to handle the truth, needs to be babied through the process, that it must necessarily *be* a “process.” That doesn’t sound like a loving stance to me, especially for an adult man who is old enough to look around and think for themselves and see for themselves how women are experiencing the world. What if you saw him as smart, capable, strong, able to handle the truth, and to act in a more egalitarian fashion today, this minute, now? That’s how I thought of Jeremy when I stopped to comment on his article - that he’s on the right path, but this article was just poor execution, and that he’s a smart, caring guy who can handle the truth spoken directly. Directness is kindness.
I struggle to empathise with men who cry about how wounded they are because they are weaponising the language of social justice and trauma to centre themselves in a world where they are already centred. Women are extraordinarily wounded by the patriarchy - I am lucky to be alive myself. Yet by and large it is men who are going around raping, exploiting, abusing and otherwise harming women *en masse.* Despite the fact that women are arguably far more “wounded” by men than the converse, women are not going around raping, killing, exploiting and abusing men en masse. And men have the gall to tell me how much “time” their “journey” is taking!
I am allergic to the false equivalence created by statements like “the patriarchy hurts men too.” Imagine saying, “oh well, slavery hurt white people too.” How tone deaf that sounds… it’s the same false equivalence Jeremy created in the title of his article, “Women feel taken advantage of. Men feel micromanaged.” As a brown person, if someone said to me (as I tried to explain racism and my experiences to them), “racism hurts white people too”, I would be like…so…what are you trying to say? That my pain is equivalent to yours? That you have any idea what it’s like being brown? That we don’t need to do anything because “everyone” is hurting? That you’re oh-so-smart and nuanced and thoughtful? That you get it (and are therefore a GOOD person therefore why don’t I just shut up already about my experiences)? That you want attention in this conversation for your pain? That I’m ok with that?
I would be more concerned with your younger brother’s girlfriends, exes, female friends and colleagues experience of him. What is the real, actual harm he has engaged in perpetuating through his (“wounded”) obliviousness? What reparations is he making? Or is he re-centering himself through his “woundedness” as a way to silence conversation and evade accountability? As women we tend to turn ourselves inside out to figure out how to make feminism more palatable to men as they continue to harm us and other women, taking the attention away from the actual harm to the “tone of her voice” when she pointed out the harm.
Does being wounded mean you clap your hands over your ears and refuse to listen to others’ pain and refuse to find ways to avoid causing them harm? Or does it mean that you are more attuned to harm and oppression, therefore more willing to listen and learn and change?
People with power claim “woundedness” to evade accountability (think of the school shooter whose murders are blamed on his “mental health” rather than misogyny). People who are actually oppressed use their woundedness to empathise with others who are oppressed.
I find it amazing that in 2024 we are still handling men like delicate fragile flowers, going softly softly, when women are experiencing the kind of harm they are experiencing everyday. I sometimes look back at historical texts and speeches like this beautiful, poignant and direct one from Andrea Dworkin in 1983, presented to a group of men who were also exploring how the patriarchy “wounded” them and who were open to doing better “I Want A Twenty-Four Hour Truce During Which There Is No Rape”: http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIIIE.html — and I wonder if anything has changed in forty years. (Jeremy, you should read this piece too.)
Ok, that’s pretty much what I thought. I’ll keep on keepin’ on then. :) I’ll send him Jeremy’s work for sure, and maybe some Sophie Strand. I’ll keep centering empathy, our shared humanity and inherent value, and also my love for him.
Chiming in to say my GODDESS your writing is amazing! Thank you for your wonderful moments where you teach so, sooo much more than this milquetoast newsletter did. Brava!
When you start your own newsletter, let me know and I’ll be first in line to subscribe.
And Jeremy - mentioning Zawn Villines’ work without having internalised any of her teachings = not a great look. I recommend paying her for a session where you can work on your blind spots.
I’ll note it’s also incredibly odd that you’ve responded to other comments, but not LoWa’s wonderful and thought-out ones. Surely all the feee labour she provided to teach you (and others) would warrant at the least an acknowledgment, and at the most a newsletter of your own in a few months’ time once you’ve had a chance to mull over her resources/advice/guidance and update your thinking.
I look forward to seeing you work alongside women to get men to step up and change.
Aw thanks for the kind words, and lol “milquetoast” sounds about right!!! Yeah defs agree that it’s poor form to quote Zawn Villines without really having engaged with her work properly. There are heaps of amazing female authors out there writing about this stuff so I stand in the shoulders of giants…but have some random feminist comedy ideas floating around arising from hilarious interactions I’ve had with so-called feminist men. Jeremy and Clint have unwittingly just added more fodder to the material
If he is really interested in learning about feminism, you don’t have to convince him.
You don’t have to turn yourself inside out thinking about how to phrase it in a nicely nicely way so he feels comfortable and has his hand held as you march towards equality together into the sunset.
You don’t have to ask strangers on the internet how to have a conversation.
You don’t have to worry about what you’re sending him to read.
You don’t have to have a three hour conversation and another one and another one…and still leave feeling like it’s a “journey” and going to take oh so long.
You don’t have to think of the right way to say things, the perfect way, the best article.
You do not have to worry about what might happen if you get it wrong - that he’ll be upset at you, cut off connection, never want to talk about this again, be put off completely.
You don’t have to write him an essay, or a letter, or pick out books and reading material for him, or summarise it, or pre-read it to make sure he won’t be offended.
With the men in my life who want to learn, and actually want to do better, I don’t have to convince them. They get it and if they miss a beat, I can say something simply and they get it quickly “oh oops I screwed that up, let me not do that again.” And that’s it.
I don’t turn myself inside out trying to figure out the best words and the nicest language to convince them. Been there, done that. With sexist men, you can use the best NVC in the universe but it counts for nothing if he’s not open to it, shuts you down, weaponises therapy-speak, and uses it against you to silence you.
You’ve spent a lot of time making a lot of assumptions here and I’m not really sure why. Have you heard of loving a person so much you just have three hour conversations regularly that are full of mutual respect, honesty, curiosity and care? I recommend it! It’s great!
I think the point she’s making here is (and please correct me if I’ve got that wrong) that he’s on the cusp of readiness, and the reality may be that the wrong article could send him back into the dark. The world isn’t black and white, sometimes nuance is needed rather than the hammer approach. I wish it was that easy to change people every time. This is actively trying to change a loved one, rather than waiting for a day that may never come where he’s fully ready to immerse in this discourse. (Edit:) I don’t expect you or any woman to have the patience left for this, but I also won’t disparage someone for wanting to use this approach in their own situation. I don’t disagree, either that it leaves a lot to be desired in terms of framing the situation and the false equivalency presented. This article still may be helpful as a step in the right direction even without the full and appropriate depth the topic deserves.
(Further Edit:) I’ve read and digested your other comments and have learned a lot from them, so thank you for your time in educating those of us still learning. I know you didn’t have to spend time on that, but I’m glad you did! I appreciate the links to more resources written by women as well 💛
Hey thanks for reading my commends on here. I do get it. It’s hard. Esp when it’s a loved one.
The question really seems to be, “How do we tell men that women are humans too, without sending men running for the hills?”
The short answer is: I don’t know.
How *do* we share with men that women are people too, who deserve care, rest, mental headspace, emotional support, household support /labour, respect, dignity, just as much as men do?
How do we share the myriad of ways, subtle and obvious, that men dismiss these needs and elevate their own?
Here’s what I do know:
- A half truth is still a lie.
- Truth telling is like oxygen, it enlivens us.
- It’s kind to tell the truth. Directness is kindness.
- Most of the amazing pieces on this topic by women are amazing because they are direct - straightforward and truthful.
If men are a bit scared of the “wrong” article that send them “back into the dark”, they may just be perceiving women’s directness as aggression (“hammer approach”) in order to justify dismissing what women are saying.
Women are constantly told to communicate better. Communicate more kindly, more softly, more gently. Can we communicate our way out of exploitation and oppression? I’m not sure. In theory, communication builds understanding which builds empathy which can lead to behaviour change and hopefully systems change one day.
In practice, if whoever we are communicating with is not listening in good faith or doesn’t really have a desire to change or to see the humanity of another…”just communicate better” becomes just another tool to further oppress and ignore by pretending the issue is one of word choice and tone rather than power and the unwillingness to give it up. https://zawn.substack.com/p/just-communicate-better-the-lie-at?utm_medium=reader2&triedRedirect=true
I’ve made it abundantly clear why I think this article would likely do more harm than good - because it centres men, because it doesn’t provide any real solutions, because it presents a mealy-mouthed argument that gives the impression of revolutionary thinking while not doing anything at all to actually change things.
I agree it’s good to share thoughtful, well-reasoned, articles on this topic - this just isn’t one of them.
Thanks for reading my various comments on this thread and hope you enjoy some of the other authors I recommended 😊🙏🏾 Take care and hope that helps.
I’ve deleted my previous reply because I was upset about the language used, and was therefore unnecessarily harsh in my tone.
Nevertheless, I think the good points this reply makes are potentially lost by the judgemental tone used in making them.
I consider myself a feminist, but when I read the generalisations used in this reply, I begin to feel that I may as well not bother if attempts to be an ally such as by the author of the article are met with apparent contempt and dismissal as per your reply.
Maybe I’ve misunderstood your intent, and much of what you said about the feelings of being oppressed when significant imbalance is corrected slightly, I wholeheartedly agree with.
I’m not suggesting men be praised for every little movement in the right direction, but neither should their attempts be subject to derision, which is how at least I read your reply.
I love me some good tone policing! Especially as women all over the world are being worked into the ground, exhausted, exploited, dismissed, belittled, backgrounded, dehumanised. Women who face aggression, threats of violence, abuse, rape etc on a daily basis, most often from their male partners, including - most maddeningly - from so called feminist allies, the liberal progressive enlightened therapised guys, the guys who know how to gaslight like no other precisely because of their “feminist” ally credentials.
And what men are most worried about is that a woman didn’t point out all this out nicely. She wasn’t being nice!!! She’s supposed to be nice!! What happened to good old fashioned human kindness?
The patriarchy is what killed it. Literally. Not my words on a screen that pointed out the patriarchy.
Yes, men are trying. Jeremy is trying. The men who are reading this article are trying. I don’t doubt there are some good intentions. I wouldn’t have stopped to write any comments at all on Jeremy’s blog had I not thought there were some good intentions - albeit poor execution.
But the path to hell is paved with good intentions. Ultimately, impact is what matters, not intent. If I kept stealing something from you, and said I was “trying” to stop, that wouldn’t be good enough. You would need me to stop immediately and compensate you for what I had taken. So why should men be lauded for “trying” not to steal their partners’ time and life through unequal household labour and management? Why should Jeremy be praised for writing an article that doesn’t actually help men solve the issue but instead may get them some pats on the back for “trying” while almost certainly ensuring the problem continues?
This is an article that centres men. Your response to my feedback also centres men. Men’s feelings, men’s needs. It’s ironic that you (a man) are asking me (a woman) to be nice - further centering men’s feelings.
It’s ironic you are asking me to be nice because the men who don’t think their partners’ time/lives are worth it are so clearly *not* nice; women have tried to raise the issues “nicely” for decades and have not been heard which is why Jeremy is writing this article to begin with; and because tone policing is a great way to ensure the status quo of patriarchy remains and women never rock the boat. Double standards.
“This is exactly what it is like to be part of a marginalised group. Politeness is met with refusal to listen. And anger is met with demands for politeness.” After 5000 years of patriarchy, men are still expecting women to point out the inhumaneness of patriarchy nicely to them?!?!
If my directness feels enough to put you off feminism, then perhaps you’re not the kind of person who should call themselves a feminist ally.
I think there are better reads on household labour management, written by women, that men should spend significant time absorbing, especially before they write about this issue.
1 - I am not personally responsible for the 7000+ years of patriarchy. Gerda Lerner’s book, “The Creation of Patriarchy” is a really interesting read and shows how this situation may have come about. I can’t change history, much that I’d like to. What I can do, is try to make changes where I can, to draw attention to sexist micro aggressions (or macro ones). I am also actively looking at understanding how the “patriarchal” centre of gravity works and what might be done to disrupt it, without, as Audre Lorde says, using the masters tools.
2 - I’ve not read any of the other resources you suggest, but I have read Kate Manne’s “Down Girl” and “Entitled” and they were uncomfortable reads, especially when I recognised myself in some of the attitudes she was describing. Nevertheless at no point while reading these did I feel that she was condemning me for the accident of birth that is my Y chromosome or the history of my sex’s treatment of the female sex throughout history.
3 - I am not interested in tone policing anyone, but I am interested in good and valid arguments being heard. There is nothing wrong with expressing anger, but when you move into contempt, then it makes it very difficult for your message to be heard by the very people who need to hear the some of the great observations you were making.
I recently came across “The Dignity Index” on Diana Butler Bass’s Substack:
This makes hard reading too, as I realise how often I’m at level 2 or 3 on the dignity index (not good) when talking about people who I disagree with. I need to improve, as I consider it very important to hold everyone in unconditional positive regard as much as I can.
I try to assume that everyone has an altruistic motive to their behaviour, even if I don’t understand it. To cherish the inherent value of people who think things I find reprehensible is really hard, but necessary if I am to understand them well enough for them to feel heard enough to be willing to hear me. This too is a work in progress.
4 - You complain that the article and my response centres men. Indeed, if it is men you want to change, and you want to have “the will to change” as bell hooks writes, then you need to present an argument that makes sense to men. A critique that says that men have been abusing women, by all means, and an insistence that this has to stop, absolutely, but it needs to be framed in a way that can be heard by the people you want to change, for example by also explaining the harm that patriarchy does to men, and why we would all be better off by dismantling patriarchy, the sooner the better.
The scene that most resonated with me in the Barbie movie was near the end when Ken vacillates between “patriarch” and “doormat”, just before being sent off to find himself.
While I unreservedly accept that life is way harder for women in our current society, it is still really difficult for most men in this society too. I think while many men want to be better, we get caught in the “patriarch/doormat” binary so well depicted in Barbie, and struggle to find the way to be strong and supportive partners without overriding or diminishing our partner in the process.
1. Jeremy and Clint should read and reflect more widely and deeply on the household labour /management issue. I’ve put some suggested texts in an earlier comment.*
2. Then Jeremy should redo this article so it addresses root causes rather than providing lacklustre “solutions” that only perpetuate the problem he’s trying to address.
(*two other excellent text I missed are “The Emotional Load” and “The Mental Load” by French comic artist Emma, who also did a Guardian comic called “You Should Have Asked”).
Clint, the good points are still there, not “lost”. If it’s uncomfortable for you to hear them delivered in this manner, maybe think about why the “judgemental” tone you say is there is difficult for you to accept. And why would judgement be inappropriate here, in any case? Criticizing patriarchy is not arrived at rashly or unjustifiably.
If you are really a feminist, I’m surprised that such a fundamental aspect of your worldview and moral compass would be called into question by an anonymous commenter’s tone. Especially when that anonymous commenter voices anger of the standard experience of the people (women) whose equality you claim to believe in.
Sometimes I ask people if they want to be right, or if they want to be happy. The tone of your essay here is in the former camp. Ok. So, you are right. You are right about privilege, you are right about patriarchy, you are right that the author has cosied up to men at the expense of justifiable female rage.
Men bear 100% responsibility for this situation because they are all entitled bastards, and women here are 100% the helpless victims in the face of men's entitlement to our bodies, our lives, our labor, our minds.
You are absolutely right. Are you happy yet?
You want to 'smash the patriarchy'? This is a worthy goal. You know how we do that? We take responsibility. We own our power. We can stop hating and blaming the sons we failed to properly raise.
We don't live in Sparta, and our boy children aren't sent off the men's camp to learn male superiority. Men are raised by women. They are largely educated by women until after high school. Like girls, they have grandmothers and aunties and sisters. If these boys are all - as you imply, being raised to be entitled, narcissistic, lazy pigs - who exactly is responsible for this?
Men ARE struggling. My SONS are struggling (the world isn't a kind place for sensitive young men right now.. 6000 years of patriarchy be damed.) Women are struggling. We are all struggling. Women are not the only victims of the culture we have co-created.
Maybe it's just me, but after a childhood of the worst kind of abuse, with both parents as co-conspirators in physical and sexual abuse - and having turned around and married the kind of man you are excoriating above - I did my OWN work. I took responsibility for my OWN life. I decided to step out of victimhood and take my own power.
And now I am surrounded by good men; men who share the load, who care for their children and their elders, who are also fully adult. I have sons that can cook, clean, pay rent, treat women well, look out for others. I quite literally 'smashed the patriarchy' in my own home.
Because I took my power as a being that holds up more than half the fucking sky.
May I ask what led to the turnaround in your situation? Did you leave the husband and find a better way forward yourself or did the inner work you did lead your husband to change?
I personally don’t want to live in a world where the only option available to women who want to “take back their power” is to run away. I want to live in a world where men change.
I’m wary of imploring women to take more self-responsibility, pull themselves up by the bootstraps etc. - can lead to a slippery slope of victim blaming / “she was asking for it.”
Women are arguably already taking on a lot of responsibility, “Am I being kind enough? Am I generous enough? Am I forgiving enough? Assertive enough? Saying it in a nice way so he’ll listen? Gentle enough?” They don’t need to be asked to take on more; men do.
In the same vein, rather than only asking what are women doing wrong in raising their sons, we could be asking why aren’t men present and engaged in their son’s lives and what more could men do. Especially in Jeremy’s context who is writing as a man, for other men.
And I could similarly read that you are a very unhappy/angry person by the “tone” of your comment (capitalisation etc) but I think that’s a silly idea (not to mention tone policing). What do I know about your life? Maybe, as you say, you lead a good life now and are just using emphatic language to make a point that you are passionate about. You might be a calm, contented person given you’ve managed to smash the patriarchy - if so, that’s great. And anyway, women’s points are often discounted if they say them too “emotionally” so it would be extra silly for me to assume you’re angry/unhappy.
In the same vein, I see no reason anyone should assume anything about my level of happiness by my comments either. Suffice to say, I escaped some pretty dire situations a few years ago and am living the most contented life I ever have. It’s a great gift to be alive, especially when I don’t have any men draining my time, labour, energy, mental and emotional space etc on a regular basis in the home. Of course, like everyone, there’s still run-of-the-mill sexism on the streets and in the workplace but knowing I’m “right” (in feeling xyz about a situation and the fact that it probably arises from gendered and racial power dynamics) gives me a sense of ease that I perhaps would not otherwise have. So yeah, maybe it is possible to be right and happy 😊 😊
Thanks to LoWa for directing me to this thread, in the course of one of our many deep conversations. I'm learning so much from you, including how to be more direct--something many of my readers would have said I already had down. But I especially like your insight that being direct is giving the person the benefit of the doubt that they're just as strong and capable of arguing back as you. It's treating them as an equal rather than 'agreeing to disagree,' which is a passive-aggressive way of claiming the high ground while positioning the other as the belligerent. With the warning that my version of 'both-sideism' is pissing both sides off as an equal opportunity offender, I will weigh in or wade in, as the case may be.
1. Like LoWa, I am happily without men in my life, at 68 with three grown daughters and ownership of my home. My daughters are happily with men in their lives, one married, one living with a boyfriend, and one embarking on a relationship that seems very promising. The married one once told me that, during a spate of his unemployment, she had turned him into the perfect house husband. She has many good tricks, and would never say that to him, but it's working even though he now is too. The living-with-boyfriend recently told him that she 'needed him to grow with her,' by which she meant noticing what needed to be cleaned without her saying it. The other daughters and I are smirking at that, since that one was quite the slob herself until she didn't have her sister or me around to pick up after her. And the one in the new relationship is speaking her mind--something she never did in the relationship she's taken 8 yrs to recover from. She's determined not to lose herself again. I have a good feeling about both of them.
My point is that, while LoWa and I can be a little sick of playing those games and figuring out how to get what you want without driving the man away, I don't think it's possible for everyone. Namely, for those who want to be in relationship with men, whether that's lovers, partners, brothers, sons or housemates. So anything that opens up this conversation around home or family labor equity is worthwhile, especially when done by a male. IMO.
2. Goddess save me from feminist men. That may have been the instigation for this link, since LoWa and I have had extensive convos about Charles fucking Eisenstein, who stole my phrase 'tonic masculinity' and represented it as his own, and the Toxic Ten who used it as a fig leaf over their misogyny: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/eisenstein-and-the-toxic-ten. And then there's the astrologer who blocked me when I posted that men should NOT be defining 'feminine intelligence': https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/tonic-masculinity-and-feminine-wiles.
Feminist man is a contradiction in terms. It's presuming, as a man, to define what women's problems are, how they feel, and speak for them. The 'ally' stuff is bullshit. Men should speak for themselves and women will do the same. I had a date with a self-described 'fifth-wave feminist' and all he did was talk over me and 'tutor' me in how I should present my argument on my stolen tonic masculinity phrase. There was no second date.
3. Feminism went the wrong direction. Rather than women's labor making the rich richer, just like men, it should have enabled the labor of men to also serve the family and community. We now have mortgages that have risen to two incomes, so women have lost the choice to not work making the rich richer.
As LoWa knows, I've written a book on how to change this: https://www.amazon.com/How-Dismantle-Empire-2020-Vision/dp/1733347607. But in the meantime, we're stuck with no one having the time to prioritize the home and family. From my research, patriarchy and capitalism are indistinguishable. The violence that destroyed the Goddess societies and replaced them with Set/h (later called Yahweh) the sociopath also introduced coinage and taxation to usurp ownership of the land and labor. Today they go by Rothschild and we pay them 60 yrs labor (with dual incomes) to live in homes they've usurped with made-up numbers. Nothing can be fixed without changing that.
4. To call inequitable household labor 'abuse' trivializes the term in a way that will be certainly used against victims of violent and sexual abuse. I'm not saying there aren't compounding factors that would make it abuse, but doing only 30% of the housework doesn't qualify. The problem comes when women have no ability to walk away--and that is a systemic problem, not a problem that can be changed by changing individual men.
5. The old trope was 'A woman's place is in the home.' I would reverse that to 'The home and children's place is belonging to the woman.' Women are homebodies, domestic goddesses. We see and care how it looks, how it feels, where everything goes. Men are semi-feral, and I'm debating the semi-.
During the 9500 yrs when God was a woman, home ownership was matrilineal with the temple grounds accommodating all women and children who wanted to live without men. Paternity wasn't a thing. If a man lived in a woman's home, he did so as a guest and kicking a mother and kids out of their home was as unthinkable as a male bluejay claiming the nest and kicking out the chicks.
Homes have been made overly precious by the Rothschild patriarchy. If men were free to work with their hands, something men enjoy and are good at, women would be free to manage their own households with no sense of scarcity. I never wanted my ex to do the emotional labor of psychoanalyzing my daughters--that's our favorite hobby! I never wanted him to have strong opinions about how things should look and feel and function. I needed him to back up my decisions--something he did inconsistently, according to the oldest. I am VERY competent in caring for the people and places in my life. I have the equivalent of a Masters in Refrigerator Feng Shui alone ;-) We don't need men to take half the responsibility, we need authority to match the responsibility we take.
In sum, I agree with LoWa that Jeremy's 'story in his head' is all about him and his feelings. It's hard enough to fight patriarchal capitalism without needing to coddle men into 'joining our cause' or protect the egos of our 'allies.' As Jeremy says, the patriarchy hurts men. Do something about that, and I have plenty of ideas on how if Jeremy needs them.
I disagree with NS that anger is ever justified, or guilt useful. Guilt makes people behave badly. I agree with Em that kid brothers can be handled with kid gloves and it doesn't take anything away from the 'purity' of the cause. I agree with Clint that he may as well not bother to be an ally. And I agree that Slightly Lucid is more than slightly, and a being who holds up more than half the fucking sky.
ps And in Sparta, it was considered a woman's right to get herself pregnant by the most handsome man she could find--and leave the child rearing of half the population up to the men. We may want to consider this, ladies ...
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.
I have a great male partner who cares deeply about equality and yet when we had a kid I also slid so easily into a role that assumed the majority of responsibility. It was weird and it freaked me out and I’m still trying to unpack it.
R.e. Relationships, I’ve personally found it to be most helpful when I stepped back and looked at the way I showed up in them. If there was resentment, it usually had to do with my codependent tendencies where I played the role of “caretaker” or “fixer,” choosing partners that needed constant emotional support (or avoidant types who didn’t actually want a long-term relationship). Now I’m in the middle of further self discovery while in a relationship, but it feels different when each of us has the mental space to grow as individuals and a unit. If both parties are able to recognize their patterns, they can both move forward together instead of using the relationship to reenact their pasts.
For some, I could see how it's a tricky discussion, but I think it's worth tackling like you have.
My wife and I role-reversed almost 2 years ago where she went back to work and I became the stay-at-home dad and home schooled our kids. It was very eye opening for us to see what the other one experienced daily.
One thing that's worked well for us over the years is that we set the baseline that during the day we acknowledge that we are both at work- even when I was at my job, we both treated it like we had each done an 8 hr work day and when I would get home, it was almost like a reset for the rest of the day : every job and responsibility in the home was shared (or made the effort to as much as possible).
This might not be the right fit for everyone, but for the 16 yrs that we've been married, we've found that it's generally worked quite well.
Setting that baseline (you both worked a full day, and now it is second shift) seems reasonable enough UNTIL you put it in practice and discover things like: who is noticing that the kids have outgrown some of their clothes and need new ones? Who plans that shopping trip? Who budgets for it? Who takes the kids, tries on the new shoes, nes coats, new shirts, with them complaining all the way usually? Who returns home exhusted to find their partner sitting on the couch playing video games, it having not occurred to him to start some damn dinner? Who starts the dinner, and who shopped for it and meal planned the week to make sure everyone has what everyone needs and food allerigies are considered? Who cleans up from it and jots what's running out on the shopping list? Who remembers that Susie has a ballet class planned for next fall and needs to register before spring break? Who gets her new ballet shoes? Who plans and executes the kids' doctor and dentist checkups? Who buys presents for all the grandparents and gets the kids to send a drawing and a card, and sits down to do that, and mails them, and organizes regular Zooms for the inlaws and outlaws to stay connected? Who imagines, consults on, budgets, plans the family vacation? Who remembers all that, plus remembers to (for example) get the gutters cleaned out and the termite bond renewed and inspected?, and who schedules it and supervises it and and and and
If you have read this far you should be exhausted at the mental load of which I have described a FRACTION. Men, honestly, may do some fraction of it---ideally so that the woman does NOT have to even thinkabout that, in the same way men do not even have to think about (fill in the blank), and it's usually keeping up with the yard and the cars, or one of the cars. Or taking on some fraction of the chore-work llike bathing kids and putting them to bed, or cleaning up from dinner, or taking out garbage, or doing some of the laundry. And that is great but it isn't even close to what needs to be happening for fairness to reign.
Or "helping"---I love that, hah, "helping": who is in charge of ALL OF THAT AND MORE, and who drops in now and them to "help"? Oh yeah, I appreciate the help but what I really need is an equal partner who takes initiative and sees what needs to be done without having to be told, who takes total responsibility for HALF OF THE WORK so the other person does not even have to think about it. Men, when was the last time you had ALL OF THIS plus things like your kids' best friend's birthday is coming up and you start planning a shopping trip and wrapping paper and the outfit the kid will wear and so on...
In nearly every household women are doing ALL THAT MENTAL PLANNING AND EXECUTING. ALL THE TIME. So you, the man, may come home after work at the same time she, the woman, does, and you relax, kick off your shoes, watch a movie after dinner? Meanwhile she is doing allllll that mental load stuff and you call her a nag when she mentions it. It is so disappointing.
So... I'm not convinced that the plan listed above even touches mental load and organizing/planning. And I am not at all convinced that men actually want to change the status quo, because their lives would be so much worse if they actually had to do all this. It is not a coincidence that women are getting a clue and choosing to be child free and/or to live independently of men. I find this sad, because I really like the men in my life and think they are great. But there's no doubt they are benefiting from the free work---and tons of it---of women, work that they are willfully clueless and defensive about. Again, I find this very sad for everyone.
I think this essay starts well and addresses an important problem. But I run into trouble wth it at this point:
"This doesn’t mean just being subservient and saying things like, “What do you need me to do?” "
It's not subservience, it's cluelessness! (Or something else less benign than cluelessness.) That question --- "what do you need me to do?" dumps the entire responsibiity for the functioning of your collective lives on the woman, and you, the man, are a helper, willing to help, to lend a hand to the person whose responsibility it is, and asking for a list (passive aggressively in some cases, or pretending to be willing in some cases, but genuinely wanting to "help" in some cases). This question takes zero responsibility except as a minor player or auxiliary "assistant" to the person who actually owns all that work. And sure, some assistance may be better than nothing, but it's not an equal relationship or an equal contribution to the household.
Men manage to take initiative to see what needs to be done at work. Men manage to take initiative to see what needs to be done with their man-toys (my boat needs a better engine; I need to repaint that woodworking shed before winter; I want to be one of the first to play that new video game and discuss it with my gamer bros; etc). Men manage to tke initiative for sex. Men, I truly believe, are not stupid at all, though some people accuse them of it. I believe men are smart and capable and hardworking WHEN THEY WANT TO BE, but what a sweet deal they have, someone keeping the boring and annoying parts of their lives running smoothly in the background freeing them up for, well, for living their lives.
So "what do you need me to do?" comes off more than a little self-serving, even if it is only a naive question.
SOMEONE did your laundry and shopped for groceries and planned a vacation and got the kids their new clothes and so on and so on, and you just let that all happen... because... well, not because you are stupid! In fact if someone did all that for me, I'd maybe never want to rock the boat and mess up the sweet deal of having a full time servant and sex-provider and childbearer and family organizer and chef and shopper and child psychologist and you name it. Give that up? Why would any smart person give that up?
Unless, of course, I looked at that someone doing all that as an equal human being, saw the insane inequity of it, and decided to stop taking advantage of that someone.
But the beginning of this article is a good start. I don't understand the pushback. Well, maybe I do understand it, but it's a shame.
26 years happily married now but this is why I will never marry again. I know I internalized what being a good wife and mom was, so much so it took me until middle school to remember that when I was in middle school I was responsible for my own laundry, hygiene, homework, social schedule so why was I doing it for my sons? There was a lot to unpack. My kids are in their early 20’s now but the relationship dynamics are totally different now.
I can’t imagine doing this with a stranger - I don’t have to band width to invest this much in another human.
I find it funny how so many men claim they are so good at leadership, how they are the leaders of the household, and then become entirely incompetent at actually leading the second it’s required of them.
They can’t plan things, they can’t organize the tasks, they can’t think ahead. They get offended when their wife expects them to do literally any of this, calling it “micromanaging” and “nagging”. They want her to just tell him what to do - the perfect soldier, the ultimate submissive.
If they truly wanted to be the leaders of the household, or even an equitable member, they would take the initiative. They aren’t not taking the initiative because they are too stupid to do so, and need a man to tell them that hey, maybe contribute to your household and your wife won’t nag you so much. They are just laying about waiting to be told because it suits them to have their wife take on all the responsibilities of managing daily life.
I’m so happy for you that you are one of the #GoodOnes who actually participate in your house as an equal partner, and that you felt the need to reassure us all of that fact. But I think this article isn’t going to change anybody’s minds. Men know it is unfair. This kind of men does not care, and will not change unless forced to do so.
Thanks for reading and commenting. I disagree that it's because men who don't help out with household management are stupid. I think we've been socialized that way by a society that devalues household labor and caring for others, and men have been trained from a young age that so-called "real work" outside the home is what we should focus on the most. It's going to take a transformation in the way we organize society (capitalism) for what society values to shift. I'm going to keep trying to play my part in that.
I think it’s an admirable take to want to improve the behaviour of men and get them to value “women’s work”. But they do know how valuable it is. It becomes far too exhausting and tiring whenever they are asked to participate, and they can’t possibly because “they had a long day at work” or some other reason.
I think you misread my comment - I don’t think men who don’t help out with household management are stupid. I explicitly think they are not stupid, and they recognize the effort and time it takes to do it. That’s why they don’t want to, and use any excuse to get out of doing it.
I agree with your intentions, and I think it is something more men should strive to do. But my point is that you’re approaching it as if men need to value caring and household labour more. They do value it, they know how important it is.
There’s an interesting quote from Lundy Bancroft, an expert on men like this:
“All this uncompensated labour from her means leisure for him… they don’t make the connection that someone takes care of the work; they think of it as just mysteriously getting done and refer to women as ‘lazy’.
On a deeper level, the [man] seems to realize how hard his partner works, because he fights like hell not to have to share that burden. He is accustomed to his luxury and often talks exaggeratedly about his exhaustion to excuse staying on his rear end.”
Sorry for misreading your comment. Totally my mistake! But for what it’s worth, I didn’t realize how valuable so-called “women’s work” (nurturing relationships, managing the family, etc.) truly is until recently. In my experience as a boy and a young man, that stuff was ignored or looked down on. I got the message that “real” work and my career was most important and I should neglect that other stuff because it isn’t worth anything. So I disagree that men know better. Some might. But the vast majority I encounter don’t.
I’m waiting for the day when executive function is mixed into this conversation more from the perspective of brain science. Nearly all of what we refer to as adulting and invisible labor is executive function.
Male children have executive function subsidized or fully provided mostly by their mothers. Then by mostly female teachers in school (giving them assignments with specific criteria, specific due dates, repeated reminders). Then again by wives when they become husbands and partners and fathers. And again, too, by mostly female executive assistants and secretaries when they become leaders at work.
At what point in life is a man ever responsible and successful with 100% of his own “adulting”? What did his single adult life look like with no woman in it? Does he take care of himself amazingly well on his own but then slack off once partnered with a woman? Or was he barely alive on cold pizza and week-old underwear when she met him?
I saw a lot of my own marriage reflected in your descriptions, even though I am not in a heterosexual relationship. I am AFAB agender, and my spouse is a woman. I don't know if me being Autistic contributes to the dynamic, but I think it must, to some degree, because I have significant executive functioning challenges. My wife is the "manager" of virtually all of the duties of keeping our household running. We've been married for 32 years, and the way we communicate regarding household stuff has changed over the years. I think the thing that has contributed more than anything else to our ability to continually grow and refine our relationship has been that we are both in the practice of "owning our own shit" and willingly sitting in the discomfort of hearing and trusting in the validity of the other person's perspective. Our marriage isn't perfect, of course, and openly acknowledging that fact actually relieves a lot of the pressure around resolving our disagreements and misunderstandings when they arise. I am a life-long social justice activist, and greatly appreciate your attention to how systemically enforced gender norms impact this dynamic. That being said, my lived experience points to the importance of this being an issue that must be addressed both on the cultural level, and also on the personal level. I am thrilled to have stumbled upon your writing, because this systemic vs. personal thing is so often presented as an either/or, and you so eloquently point out that is a both/and. Thank you!
I agree with Steve, the first commenter. Just reading the section of your piece about planning a new kindergartener’s medical forms spiked my anxiety, and I literally don’t understand how parents are able to manage full or part-time work and manage the household. I feel like I’m barely able to take care of myself, our cats, and our home. I tend to say out loud what needs to happen, which helps my brain acknowledge the task, whether we have to do it right away or not. I might say “Ah, we need to take out the recycling at some point.” Or “Remember, we need to schedule the cats’ next vet appointment.” There are things I need to specifically ask my partner to do if I’m feeling overwhelmed, but otherwise I’m generally OK splitting the duties of our household like we tend to do with expenses.
I agree that it’s difficult, and I find it most helpful to acknowledge where we both are in terms of capacity, energy, and availability with what we can handle. I try to avoid resentment by asking for help when it is needed and not keeping score, and managing my own expectations of each of our strengths and how we can leverage them to work together. Again, no comment on child-rearing as that seems to be a full-time position unto itself, but I think frequent check-ins and being honest with our capacity (and using “we” to refer to household responsibilities) helps to lessen the burden. Life is stressful enough without building unnecessary tension at home.
I love the “we” thing! I used to be bothered by it (and it can be used sometime to avoid more direct language and accountability). But I realized that was my avoidance speaking. My partner and I use it a lot now!
I missed this when it was first posted. Wasn’t on Substack. I want to add that from my own experience — and this might be useful to you as a therapist, Jeremy — the problem is less the fact that women and men struggle to manage the social pressures and definitions of “a good wife and a good husband” and more that we suck at negotiating our personal realities around these expectations.
We come into relationship with social expectations and personal role models baked in the last century. And we establish ourselves in new relationship with these forces at work. Even if we negotiate a little from the outset, we don’t know each other as well as we know these forces working inside us.
Then reality hits. Kids. Life. Stress. We fall back on unconscious patterns. We get stuck and want things to change. And we are terrible at negotiating with each other to change them. When one asks to renegotiate an agreement the other gets triggered. We don’t even see the agreements we have in place. So we fight about things we can’t change (social expectation) instead of things we can change (our own frame on them and each other).
I’d love for there to be more visibility into what a healthy discussion between women and men on these topics might look like. I’m getting tired of the same old tropes (women do the adulting and men chafe at being micromanaged). It’s true and it’s also not helpful anymore. The reframe was useful for helping us see it. Now we need to move beyond it.
Thank you, Jeremy, for trying in writing to work through these messy but important areas of life! It frustrates me that my husband shuts off his brain when he gets home (that’s how he describes it to me) and that I have a difficult time getting him to see how much unseen planning and prep labor I carry for our family (the doctor visits and kid clothes and making sure everyone has toothpaste, etc.).
Thanks for reading and commenting, Jennifer! I want to write something about that "turning the brain off" that many people but it seems like particularly men want to feel after work. It sounds like dissociation, which is a way of resting the brain. And I want to write about it in the context of the unequal distribution of household labor (because of patriarchal capitalism). Hope to write about it soon!
Thank you for this, Jeremy! Thank you for being someone participating in this conversation. I was going to say I wish I could plausibly send some fellas in your direction for support but it turns out you're in Baltimore? I'm in southern PA--so I actually could! 'Til that opportunity arises, I'll share your articles.
We feel exactly as you described, Jeremy. I feel like I am always keeping track of things alone and my partner feels like I am checking to see where he makes mistakes.
We talk a lot and keep discussing this, and I sent him your piece, which resonated with him.
I have learned through our discussions that if I make my expectations regarding the share of work transparent he won't feel "ordered about" and instead will take up chores and management without me asking. He learned that me being critical of undesired outcomes of chores doesn't extend to him as a partner and a person in general.
I wish I could expect my partner to have received a different upbringing, one that would make him better at taking care of an household but he didn't and that's not a reflection of his character. A reflection of his character it's if he's willing to listen when I tell him that his contributions, even with the best of intentions, are sometimes insufficient and he needs to step up because I am not going to have a partner I need to mother.
But to be quite frank I didn't want to enter an heterosexual relationship before meeting my partner precisely because I dreaded having to discuss the uneven division of labor that would inevitably happen.
And I still feel that the weight of educating adult men on this falls still almost fully on women's shoulders and that makes me angry and also makes me feel like I "gave in" to societal expectations I didn't want to fulfill.
The only good book I’ve ever read on this topic was written by Matthew Fray, yes, a man, titled This is How Your Marriage Ends. I’ve had experienced female counselors not understand about women’s hidden labor and frustrations what Matthew Fray does and states simply, in easy to understand terms.
Here’s the takeaway message fellas: doing your fair share of the housework is not actually about the housework, it’s about understanding your partner’s needs and fulfilling them. While you’re thinking you’re being nagged to put a glass in the dishwasher or underwear in the hamper, your wife feels betrayed and hurt and will eventually see you as a child, not the man she married and our female sex drives are turned to zero when see you as less than a man.
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.
Hi Lowa, thanks for reading and commenting. I’ve been following along with the conversation. I’ve felt nervous to insert myself before I could gather my feelings and thoughts. I’m still feeling a little messy about it, but I wanted to chime in. I have two main reactions:
First, the story in my head after reading your comments is that my life experience and perspective aren’t worthwhile for you to be curious about and what you’re looking for is for me to do exactly what you say. I’m curious if that’s how you feel. If so, that doesn’t feel good to me and makes me want to pull away (which I’m okay with but would rather move toward connection with you). The point of my newsletter is precisely to center men’s experiences and do so to try to convince more men to join in feminist struggle against patriarchal capitalism.
Second, my hunch is that we’ll likely have to agree to disagree. I think it has to do with our different theories of change, but I’m curious how this lands with you. My read of your comments is that you believe change happens by convincing enough individual men to do the work. My belief is that change mostly happens through movements engaging in political and economic struggle. I do think men have to do the work, but I strongly believe based on my experience as a therapist and as a member of the labor movement that people won’t do anything if they don’t see that it’s in their interest to do so. I believe people change and take action because of common interests and solidarity, not shaming, punishing, or disciplining them. In my work with clients and inside my own inner system, shame keeps people stuck. It literally shuts down the nervous system (which is a little of what I felt reading you quote my writing in your comments in what felt like a mocking way). I do in fact think patriarchy hurts men too (while still giving us advantages over women and other marginalized genders). And this might be a surprise to you based on one of your comments, but I think white supremacy hurts white people too. I modeled this newsletter after an organization I’ve been involved with called White Awake, which educates and organizes white people to fight racism not only because it will help POC, but precisely because it will also help white people.
This feels a little petty, but I want to mention that I came to this perspective by interacting with and reading primarily women: the psychologist Tara Brach; abolitionists like Miriame Kaba and Derecka Purnell; and socialist feminists like Silvia Federici, Nancy Fraser, and Tithi Bhattacharya. I’m not one to recommend that you read something if not asked, but I do recommend their work.
Thanks for commenting, Jeremy. I was curious about your read of this discussion.
I agree that racism also hurts white people and patriarchy also hurts men. These systems prevent all of us from reaching our full human potential.
I also agree that shame alone doesn’t motivate people to change. I think mass movements + recognition of one’s own role in the problem + fighting for improvement in all of our spheres are all needed to contribute to this change. So we need to work on a societal level, as well as the institutional, family and individual levels.
Because, since we women usually see and experience these struggles only in our own relationships and households, it is a deeply personal struggle, and there’s something inherently unsatisfying about the idea that suffering for women happens at an individual/personal level but men get to speak about it in higher level terms as if it had nothing to do with them.
That’s the thinking that allows men to call themselves feminists and at the same time exploit their partners, family members, employees, and coworkers.
We are angry because we have been taken advantage of, and our anger is justified, and I think it’s important that men understand that in a palpable rather than a merely theoretical way. Yep, it’s uncomfortable. It’s also uncomfortable for me as a white person to face up to my own racism. But I am not uncomfortable with the idea that others may be angry at me personally for my privilege, even though I am not personally responsible for systemic racism. Of course they are. It would be pretty weird if they weren’t. I need to be called out and reminded of it - otherwise how is my anti-racism put to the test? How can I be sure I’m not just talking the talk?
So if men feel shame about the status and experiences and suffering of women, should we not ask why they feel that way? What are they ashamed about, if they’ve done nothing wrong? And if men admit their role, and commit to change… then why would they continue to feel shame?
Hundred percent agree with all of this!
Thanks Jeremy.
In response to feedback, your first comment is that you’re afraid that I’m not empathetic and curious about you and that I want you to do “exactly” as I say. That sounds like every sexist guy I’ve ever given feedback to - who feels “misunderstood” , “uncared for” and “controlled” (just like the title of your article) when a woman points out *his* problematic behaviour and offers some reasonable suggestions/requests – rather than really engaging with what the woman has to say or asking her any questions.
Given your feminist credentials, at this point all I could do was laugh. I wondered how you could possibly not have known how it would land.
The reason I stopped to comment was because of the content and execution of this article, which is the key issue that you haven’t engaged with. It’s not about you; your life experience; your background. To say that that’s the story you’re making up to me implies, “But I’m not like that, I’m a good guy, if you really knew me you would know…”
Well, if you really knew me…If you had a better grasp of what it’s like being a woman in relationships with men where we do the lion’s share of emotional and mental labour, it would be obvious to you why your article doesn’t read well. But you don’t, and that’s obvious.
Also a note on reviewers’ feedback. Writers get feedback all the time, this is why there’s a comments section. I’m judging the article, not you. An article should be judged on its own merits. Think about it. You’re a man writing about feminism. Why do I need to know your life story to be able to give useful feedback on a piece of your writing, on a topic that I know more about than you? A good article should read well and standalone in its own right. If it reflects badly on you, the problem is the article, not me and my lack of “curiosity” about you and your life.
As this conversation wore on, it was difficult not to judge you [in addition to judging the article] based on your actions and non-actions. You didn’t respond to my very first comment (while responding to others), you failed to intervene when a male commenter made sexist comments, you moreover “liked” his posts, your deafening silence as a bystander as the conversations went on, and then you finally commented at the behest of a female reader pointing out all this hypocrisy only to…ask me if I cared about YOU and your life experiences. Sigh.
1. You say that the “point of my newsletter is precisely to center men’s experiences and do so to try to convince more men to join in feminist struggle against patriarchal capitalism.”
Ahem. Men are excellent at centering themselves (like you just did in your response to me). Feminism is not about centering men, it’s about stopping harm against women - and not just “not harming” but actively nurturing women. As women have been doing for everyone for a long, long time. A more helpful goal would be that “the point of this newsletter is to help men centre women’s experiences and in doing so make men more effective in the feminist struggle for equality between the sexes…”
2. Systems change vs individual change
On theories of change, of COURSE I think that systems change is necessary *and* I also think men use it as a convenient excuse to get out of doing the work right in front of their noses: doing the dishes, folding the laundry, feeding pets. Do we really need systems change for men to start doing these things, right now, right this minute? Do we really need to wait for “systems change” for men to see women as full human beings whose time, worth, life is of equal significance to theirs? Do we need systems to change before men can magically be able to apply the skills they use everyday at work (multitasking, conflict resolution, organisation, planning) in the home?
You might say that, well, men need a bit of practice at emotional labour, some systems change in our economy, education, sports, politics, employment, etc could help. All I have to say to that is: maybe. Men are great at emotional labour in early stages of relationships. Listening to her, paying attention, asking her what she likes, delighting her, going out of his way to surprise her, staying up and we can watch whatever you want to watch (and meaning it), talking about feelings…
The reason so many women have so much resentment about this is because we KNOW men can do it because we’ve seen them do other so well in early stages of relationships. But they tap out just when the relationship is secure enough and “it’s not my job anymore”. But emotional labour is the backbone of relationships, not the entry fee. Men don’t need to go on a course, a journey, a retreat, or endless therapy to treat their partners like human beings that matter. They can do it right now, today.
After all, women live in the same ridiculous capitalist genocidal imperialist colonial ecocidal corporatocracy system…and they don’t need endless years of therapy and retreats and for the whole ‘system’ to change to see men as human beings who deserve love, care, affection, emotional support etc. Why should we wait until we’ve resolved the capitalist genocidal imperialist colonial ecocidal corporatocracy system for men to be thoughtful and kind and do emotional labour, when they can clearly be thoughtful and kind and do emotional labour just fine right now when it suits them (in the workplace, in early stages of dating). Why do we expect this work of women who live in the same ecocidal genocidal capitalist system but not of men (until the system changes) – isn’t that a double standard?
I’m talking about systems change in a deeper way – the shadow side of “systems change” rhetoric which can be weaponised to create more inertia and provide yet another excuse for men not to listen to, and take influence from, the women in front of their noses.
Also – tied to this is that I think each gender probably needs to do more of the opposite of what it’s socialised to. Men are taught to externalise (“it’s someone else’s fault” – therefore anger is an acceptable emotion). Women are taught to internalise (“omg this is totally my fault, how can I be more loving, caring, generous” – therefore shame/guilt/sadness are more acceptable emotions). Men need to stop blaming women and “the system” and start internalising more, taking responsibility and holding themselves accountable. Women should start externalising more and calling out men for their shitty, abusive behaviour, and leaving relationships at the first sign of BS.
3. “Patriarchy hurts men too,” “white supremacy hurts white people too.”
Bro, I know. That’s not the point. The point is the false equivalence of the statements “patriarchy harms women” and “patriarchy hurts men”. “Equivalent” literally means “equal in force, amount, value, function, purpose or qualities.” The harm women experience at the hands of patriarchy is not equivalent or comparable to the type and degree of harm that men experience.
The other point is – as N S noted, these contrary statements are often used to silence conversation and re-centre men and white people respectively, who are already centred. I could yell “ALL LIVES MATTER” from the rooftops and sure, ~technically~ it’s true, all lives do matter, and it’s inappropriate and taking away focus from what BIPOC folks experience all day, everyday. That’s why I can’t stomach your contrary statements when said in response to something I as a brown woman say.
I’m not saying “don’t talk about systems change or how patriarchy hurts men too”. I’m saying: be aware how you might inadvertently re-inscribe power dynamics by talking about them in ways that re-centre men and accidentally let them off the hook. Accountability is important. And - dare I say it - personal responsibility. Men are not lacking in agency entirely, at the whims of this mysterious "invisible hand" of the "system" that tosses them around - there's obvious stuff like feeding pets and thinking about the shopping list they can do right now, but choose not to.
4. “People won’t do anything unless it’s in their interests to do so.”
Nah. Not buying this one either. That suggests we must show men why feminism will benefit them before they do anything to benefit women. Have you been reading psychology from…the early twentieth century? Capitalist peeps? Have you not read anything on altruism / pro-social behaviour / ‘relational values’ in psychology (tragedy of the commons does not tend to occur in well-knit groups and nor bystander effect - both supposedly arising from our innate selfishness; pan-cultural studies show that pro-social values such as benevolence top the values hierarchy).
Have you ever loved a human so much that you would step between them and a bullet in a heartbeat? Without thinking?
For someone railing against the individualistic capitalist system, the view of men as innately and irrevocably selfish and therefore needing to be convinced feminism is in “their interests” (as a “utility maximising individual”) is a patriarchal white supremacist notion that you are suggesting we buy into…in order to…dismantle the capitalist patriarchy?!
What if it’s not in men’s interests to change but they should do so anyway because it makes the world a more loving, sane place? What if that means it in fact is in men’s interests to change? BOTH these questions are problematic because they centre men. The point of feminism isn’t to make men feel good about themselves, it is for men to stop harming women, make reparations for any harm done, and ideally actively nurture women. If you keep forgetting that or sidelining that, you’re going to end up doing more harm.
As men tend to have fragile male egos, literally anything that is constructive feedback can be read as "shaming, punishing and disciplining". As a woman I have turned myself INSIDE OUT to say my feelings and needs in the most palatable and nonviolent and gentle way to sexist men and they *still* centred themselves and said they felt "controlled" as a way to avoid listening or doing anything at all. Even old white dude Marshall Rosenberg's wife would tell him that he "could read demands into a rock." When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
If shame is, as Brene Brown says, "fear of loss of connection" then this implies that men are afraid of loss of connection when they feel ashamed by something women say. This is easily weaponised against women thus: you must show him you're there for him, kind, not disconnecting so he doesn’t feel shame so he connects with you in turn…Men’s shame is laid in women’s laps. Bleargh. I’m tired of cleaning up men’s messes. I don’t have time for your shame. We women – we don’t have time.
And consider this: sometimes change doesn’t happen because the oppressed cosied up to the oppressors and lovingly convinced them that change was in the *oppressor's* interests via “common interests and solidarity” and everyone marched off into the sunset happily together (nor because the oppressors went to ‘therapy’ and sorted their internal family systems out..). The French Revolution, the protests and strikes of Gandhi, the Civil War. Possibly the biggest cataclysms have required force and withdrawal.
Heterosexual intimacy is of course different because it’s characterised by deep intimacy between the sexes, which makes it more tangly. But still. Men don’t need to be convinced that feminism is good for them too. That’s just buying into a model of men that affirms their inherent selfishness and self-centredness and that we must pander to this at all costs. Men don’t need to feel like it’s “in THEIR interests” to treat women like humans; they need to do so because it’s in women’s interests. Ideally without force or withdrawal (divorce).
But what we’re seeing is an epidemic of women initiating divorces in countries where it’s legal to do so, which pretty much tells me all I need to know about men’s ability and willingness (or lack thereof) to treat women like an equal. Even though – everyone sane would say – it is in men’s interests to do emotional labour because they don’t end up dying alone, their health is better, their family doesn’t hate them etc etc. Men appear to be so clueless that they won’t even do things even when it IS in their interests to do so…
All that said, consider this: “Why are we [women] not in armed combat against you? It is not because there is no shortage of kitchen knives in this country. It is because we believe in your humanity, despite all the evidence.” – Andrea Dworkin.
“Your humanity” in this case means “your ability to fully see the humanity in others [women]” – which is the exact opposite of the capitalist “enlightened” self-interest that you are so bent on appealing to.
Hi, I'm wondering how you would approach things in real life, person to person situations. I happened on this article, and your comment, after a three hour conversation with my younger brother about this very issue. He's 23. He is deeply wounded by and slowly rethinking modern masculinity, while still also participating in it because it's all he knows. It's taking time. I love him dearly and want him to grow in this and do well. An article like Jeremy's seems ideal to send him, and even that might be a bit much for him to take just yet. Your comment would make him defensive, and I understand why. His feelings don't arise from his belief that he is "innately superior, his time and life and just worth more than the woman’s." He was conditioned a particular way, just like I--the only female child in the household--was conditioned in another. I see the conditioning as wrong, not the individual. If I were to make comments in the vein of yours to my brother, he would most likely shut down and/or get defensive. Honestly, I don't blame him. If he were to shut down then we wouldn't be able to move forward on this and hopefully create change for him and society. I care about him, so I'm willing to do the work to be loving and patient as he grapples with this, even if that seems "unfair" because I'm female and he's male.
Hi Ema, thanks for your question. I personally wouldn’t send this particular article to a younger brother if I had one because - as I’ve made abundantly clear (much to Jeremy’s and Clint’s discomfort, I imagine) — I don’t think this is a helpful article about household labour inequity. It doesn’t address the root causes of the problems and doesn’t offer any solutions that work. I think it has the potential to do more harm than good because it gives the appearance of being thoughtful, enlightened, vulnerable etc while leaving the actual problem unresolved.
Men are masters of doing this in relationships — trotting out mealy-mouthed excuses, waxing lyrical about therapy they are doing, or men’s groups they attend, or the “journey” they are on and “systemic issues”…as a substitute for doing any work at all. By sending him this article, you will likely just give him more reason to think of himself as a good person (because he’s reading a “good guy’s” articles), and more elaborate feminist words to throw around, while not really getting to the actual problem at hand.
As I said before, there are other, much better authors writing on household labour inequity. Zawn Villines has written extensively on this topic and I would encourage you to check out her work: https://open.substack.com/pub/zawn/p/a-comprehensive-guide-to-feminist?r=qdiky&utm_medium=ios
She also has some tips for talking to kids and family members about sexism which may be useful (although I know it’s an adult brother!).
The other female authors I referenced above are also all great.
The epic emotional labour thread is stellar: https://www.metafilter.com/151267/Wheres-My-Cut-On-Unpaid-Emotional-Labor (Jeremy, I know you’re still reading the comments, so I urge you to take a few days out of your substack schedule to fully read this).
If a man is really open to learning, he will seek out info that will challenge him, and make him feel uncomfortable. And he will be open to influence. My younger sister’s partner (26yo) picks up books like “Entitled: How male privilege hurts women” and “Fed up” and “Men explain things to me” off my bookshelf regularly. And he reads them! When my sister gives him feedback, he opens up his notes app on his phone and he takes notes. Literally. He listens to me talk at length and frankly about sexism in intimate relationships. And he doesn’t get defensive, hostile, proclaim he’s not like that or “not all men”. He too grew up in the same country as my sister and I which has the one of the highest rates of domestic violence in the OECD and a super macho bro male culture.
My dad who was socialised into masculinity in one of the countries with the most HORRIFIC types of violence against women (India), would be able to handle my direct feedback that he thought his time and life worth more than my mother’s, which is why she abandoned her career to take care of the kids and he treated her in super sexist ways. He can handle my directness because he is actually open to change and doing better. Even though he has experienced harm in other ways (racism), that doesn’t make him too “wounded” to want to do better (and actually *do* better) in the sexism department.
I am not indigenous to the country I now live in, but I regularly read work by indigenous authors, even when it’s free and frank, even if it challenges how I perceive and act in the world - because I want to do better and I know I have privilege that can cause harm.
There are probably areas in which you are privileged too but would be willing to really understand the perspective of the less privileged (whether it be across class, racial, ability or other lines), including through books, films, courses - even if it makes you uncomfortable. Because you know that the discomfort you feel reading about someone’s pain is not equivalent to the actual horrific things they experienced that caused them pain.
I note you centre your brother’s “woundedness” in your comment. The implication is that he is fragile, too delicate to handle the truth, needs to be babied through the process, that it must necessarily *be* a “process.” That doesn’t sound like a loving stance to me, especially for an adult man who is old enough to look around and think for themselves and see for themselves how women are experiencing the world. What if you saw him as smart, capable, strong, able to handle the truth, and to act in a more egalitarian fashion today, this minute, now? That’s how I thought of Jeremy when I stopped to comment on his article - that he’s on the right path, but this article was just poor execution, and that he’s a smart, caring guy who can handle the truth spoken directly. Directness is kindness.
I struggle to empathise with men who cry about how wounded they are because they are weaponising the language of social justice and trauma to centre themselves in a world where they are already centred. Women are extraordinarily wounded by the patriarchy - I am lucky to be alive myself. Yet by and large it is men who are going around raping, exploiting, abusing and otherwise harming women *en masse.* Despite the fact that women are arguably far more “wounded” by men than the converse, women are not going around raping, killing, exploiting and abusing men en masse. And men have the gall to tell me how much “time” their “journey” is taking!
I am allergic to the false equivalence created by statements like “the patriarchy hurts men too.” Imagine saying, “oh well, slavery hurt white people too.” How tone deaf that sounds… it’s the same false equivalence Jeremy created in the title of his article, “Women feel taken advantage of. Men feel micromanaged.” As a brown person, if someone said to me (as I tried to explain racism and my experiences to them), “racism hurts white people too”, I would be like…so…what are you trying to say? That my pain is equivalent to yours? That you have any idea what it’s like being brown? That we don’t need to do anything because “everyone” is hurting? That you’re oh-so-smart and nuanced and thoughtful? That you get it (and are therefore a GOOD person therefore why don’t I just shut up already about my experiences)? That you want attention in this conversation for your pain? That I’m ok with that?
I would be more concerned with your younger brother’s girlfriends, exes, female friends and colleagues experience of him. What is the real, actual harm he has engaged in perpetuating through his (“wounded”) obliviousness? What reparations is he making? Or is he re-centering himself through his “woundedness” as a way to silence conversation and evade accountability? As women we tend to turn ourselves inside out to figure out how to make feminism more palatable to men as they continue to harm us and other women, taking the attention away from the actual harm to the “tone of her voice” when she pointed out the harm.
Does being wounded mean you clap your hands over your ears and refuse to listen to others’ pain and refuse to find ways to avoid causing them harm? Or does it mean that you are more attuned to harm and oppression, therefore more willing to listen and learn and change?
People with power claim “woundedness” to evade accountability (think of the school shooter whose murders are blamed on his “mental health” rather than misogyny). People who are actually oppressed use their woundedness to empathise with others who are oppressed.
I find it amazing that in 2024 we are still handling men like delicate fragile flowers, going softly softly, when women are experiencing the kind of harm they are experiencing everyday. I sometimes look back at historical texts and speeches like this beautiful, poignant and direct one from Andrea Dworkin in 1983, presented to a group of men who were also exploring how the patriarchy “wounded” them and who were open to doing better “I Want A Twenty-Four Hour Truce During Which There Is No Rape”: http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIIIE.html — and I wonder if anything has changed in forty years. (Jeremy, you should read this piece too.)
I hope that helps.
Ok, that’s pretty much what I thought. I’ll keep on keepin’ on then. :) I’ll send him Jeremy’s work for sure, and maybe some Sophie Strand. I’ll keep centering empathy, our shared humanity and inherent value, and also my love for him.
Chiming in to say my GODDESS your writing is amazing! Thank you for your wonderful moments where you teach so, sooo much more than this milquetoast newsletter did. Brava!
When you start your own newsletter, let me know and I’ll be first in line to subscribe.
And Jeremy - mentioning Zawn Villines’ work without having internalised any of her teachings = not a great look. I recommend paying her for a session where you can work on your blind spots.
I’ll note it’s also incredibly odd that you’ve responded to other comments, but not LoWa’s wonderful and thought-out ones. Surely all the feee labour she provided to teach you (and others) would warrant at the least an acknowledgment, and at the most a newsletter of your own in a few months’ time once you’ve had a chance to mull over her resources/advice/guidance and update your thinking.
I look forward to seeing you work alongside women to get men to step up and change.
Aw thanks for the kind words, and lol “milquetoast” sounds about right!!! Yeah defs agree that it’s poor form to quote Zawn Villines without really having engaged with her work properly. There are heaps of amazing female authors out there writing about this stuff so I stand in the shoulders of giants…but have some random feminist comedy ideas floating around arising from hilarious interactions I’ve had with so-called feminist men. Jeremy and Clint have unwittingly just added more fodder to the material
Another thought:
If he is really interested in learning about feminism, you don’t have to convince him.
You don’t have to turn yourself inside out thinking about how to phrase it in a nicely nicely way so he feels comfortable and has his hand held as you march towards equality together into the sunset.
You don’t have to ask strangers on the internet how to have a conversation.
You don’t have to worry about what you’re sending him to read.
You don’t have to have a three hour conversation and another one and another one…and still leave feeling like it’s a “journey” and going to take oh so long.
You don’t have to think of the right way to say things, the perfect way, the best article.
You do not have to worry about what might happen if you get it wrong - that he’ll be upset at you, cut off connection, never want to talk about this again, be put off completely.
You don’t have to write him an essay, or a letter, or pick out books and reading material for him, or summarise it, or pre-read it to make sure he won’t be offended.
With the men in my life who want to learn, and actually want to do better, I don’t have to convince them. They get it and if they miss a beat, I can say something simply and they get it quickly “oh oops I screwed that up, let me not do that again.” And that’s it.
I don’t turn myself inside out trying to figure out the best words and the nicest language to convince them. Been there, done that. With sexist men, you can use the best NVC in the universe but it counts for nothing if he’s not open to it, shuts you down, weaponises therapy-speak, and uses it against you to silence you.
You’ve spent a lot of time making a lot of assumptions here and I’m not really sure why. Have you heard of loving a person so much you just have three hour conversations regularly that are full of mutual respect, honesty, curiosity and care? I recommend it! It’s great!
I think the point she’s making here is (and please correct me if I’ve got that wrong) that he’s on the cusp of readiness, and the reality may be that the wrong article could send him back into the dark. The world isn’t black and white, sometimes nuance is needed rather than the hammer approach. I wish it was that easy to change people every time. This is actively trying to change a loved one, rather than waiting for a day that may never come where he’s fully ready to immerse in this discourse. (Edit:) I don’t expect you or any woman to have the patience left for this, but I also won’t disparage someone for wanting to use this approach in their own situation. I don’t disagree, either that it leaves a lot to be desired in terms of framing the situation and the false equivalency presented. This article still may be helpful as a step in the right direction even without the full and appropriate depth the topic deserves.
(Further Edit:) I’ve read and digested your other comments and have learned a lot from them, so thank you for your time in educating those of us still learning. I know you didn’t have to spend time on that, but I’m glad you did! I appreciate the links to more resources written by women as well 💛
Hey thanks for reading my commends on here. I do get it. It’s hard. Esp when it’s a loved one.
The question really seems to be, “How do we tell men that women are humans too, without sending men running for the hills?”
The short answer is: I don’t know.
How *do* we share with men that women are people too, who deserve care, rest, mental headspace, emotional support, household support /labour, respect, dignity, just as much as men do?
How do we share the myriad of ways, subtle and obvious, that men dismiss these needs and elevate their own?
Here’s what I do know:
- A half truth is still a lie.
- Truth telling is like oxygen, it enlivens us.
- It’s kind to tell the truth. Directness is kindness.
- Most of the amazing pieces on this topic by women are amazing because they are direct - straightforward and truthful.
If men are a bit scared of the “wrong” article that send them “back into the dark”, they may just be perceiving women’s directness as aggression (“hammer approach”) in order to justify dismissing what women are saying.
Women are constantly told to communicate better. Communicate more kindly, more softly, more gently. Can we communicate our way out of exploitation and oppression? I’m not sure. In theory, communication builds understanding which builds empathy which can lead to behaviour change and hopefully systems change one day.
In practice, if whoever we are communicating with is not listening in good faith or doesn’t really have a desire to change or to see the humanity of another…”just communicate better” becomes just another tool to further oppress and ignore by pretending the issue is one of word choice and tone rather than power and the unwillingness to give it up. https://zawn.substack.com/p/just-communicate-better-the-lie-at?utm_medium=reader2&triedRedirect=true
I’ve made it abundantly clear why I think this article would likely do more harm than good - because it centres men, because it doesn’t provide any real solutions, because it presents a mealy-mouthed argument that gives the impression of revolutionary thinking while not doing anything at all to actually change things.
I agree it’s good to share thoughtful, well-reasoned, articles on this topic - this just isn’t one of them.
Thanks for reading my various comments on this thread and hope you enjoy some of the other authors I recommended 😊🙏🏾 Take care and hope that helps.
I’ve deleted my previous reply because I was upset about the language used, and was therefore unnecessarily harsh in my tone.
Nevertheless, I think the good points this reply makes are potentially lost by the judgemental tone used in making them.
I consider myself a feminist, but when I read the generalisations used in this reply, I begin to feel that I may as well not bother if attempts to be an ally such as by the author of the article are met with apparent contempt and dismissal as per your reply.
Maybe I’ve misunderstood your intent, and much of what you said about the feelings of being oppressed when significant imbalance is corrected slightly, I wholeheartedly agree with.
I’m not suggesting men be praised for every little movement in the right direction, but neither should their attempts be subject to derision, which is how at least I read your reply.
I love me some good tone policing! Especially as women all over the world are being worked into the ground, exhausted, exploited, dismissed, belittled, backgrounded, dehumanised. Women who face aggression, threats of violence, abuse, rape etc on a daily basis, most often from their male partners, including - most maddeningly - from so called feminist allies, the liberal progressive enlightened therapised guys, the guys who know how to gaslight like no other precisely because of their “feminist” ally credentials.
And what men are most worried about is that a woman didn’t point out all this out nicely. She wasn’t being nice!!! She’s supposed to be nice!! What happened to good old fashioned human kindness?
The patriarchy is what killed it. Literally. Not my words on a screen that pointed out the patriarchy.
Yes, men are trying. Jeremy is trying. The men who are reading this article are trying. I don’t doubt there are some good intentions. I wouldn’t have stopped to write any comments at all on Jeremy’s blog had I not thought there were some good intentions - albeit poor execution.
But the path to hell is paved with good intentions. Ultimately, impact is what matters, not intent. If I kept stealing something from you, and said I was “trying” to stop, that wouldn’t be good enough. You would need me to stop immediately and compensate you for what I had taken. So why should men be lauded for “trying” not to steal their partners’ time and life through unequal household labour and management? Why should Jeremy be praised for writing an article that doesn’t actually help men solve the issue but instead may get them some pats on the back for “trying” while almost certainly ensuring the problem continues?
This is an article that centres men. Your response to my feedback also centres men. Men’s feelings, men’s needs. It’s ironic that you (a man) are asking me (a woman) to be nice - further centering men’s feelings.
It’s ironic you are asking me to be nice because the men who don’t think their partners’ time/lives are worth it are so clearly *not* nice; women have tried to raise the issues “nicely” for decades and have not been heard which is why Jeremy is writing this article to begin with; and because tone policing is a great way to ensure the status quo of patriarchy remains and women never rock the boat. Double standards.
“This is exactly what it is like to be part of a marginalised group. Politeness is met with refusal to listen. And anger is met with demands for politeness.” After 5000 years of patriarchy, men are still expecting women to point out the inhumaneness of patriarchy nicely to them?!?!
If my directness feels enough to put you off feminism, then perhaps you’re not the kind of person who should call themselves a feminist ally.
I think there are better reads on household labour management, written by women, that men should spend significant time absorbing, especially before they write about this issue.
— Fed Up by Gemma Hartley
— Metafilter’s “Epic Emotional Labour Thread” (printable version is 750 pages - moving, personal stories of hundreds of women on unequal emotional labour): “Where’s My Cut?”: On Unpaid Emotional Labor | MetaFilter - https://www.metafilter.com/151267/Wheres-My-Cut-On-Unpaid-Emotional-Labor
— Framed by Gender by Celia Ridgeway
— Wifework by Susan Maushart
— Entitled: How Male Privilege Hurts Women by Kate Manne
— Zawn Villines, Liberating Motherhood Substack, “Why Household Labour Inequity is Abuse,” “Weapons Sexist Men Use Series”
— Desiree B Stephens’ Substack “On the right to comfort”
1 - I am not personally responsible for the 7000+ years of patriarchy. Gerda Lerner’s book, “The Creation of Patriarchy” is a really interesting read and shows how this situation may have come about. I can’t change history, much that I’d like to. What I can do, is try to make changes where I can, to draw attention to sexist micro aggressions (or macro ones). I am also actively looking at understanding how the “patriarchal” centre of gravity works and what might be done to disrupt it, without, as Audre Lorde says, using the masters tools.
2 - I’ve not read any of the other resources you suggest, but I have read Kate Manne’s “Down Girl” and “Entitled” and they were uncomfortable reads, especially when I recognised myself in some of the attitudes she was describing. Nevertheless at no point while reading these did I feel that she was condemning me for the accident of birth that is my Y chromosome or the history of my sex’s treatment of the female sex throughout history.
3 - I am not interested in tone policing anyone, but I am interested in good and valid arguments being heard. There is nothing wrong with expressing anger, but when you move into contempt, then it makes it very difficult for your message to be heard by the very people who need to hear the some of the great observations you were making.
I recently came across “The Dignity Index” on Diana Butler Bass’s Substack:
https://open.substack.com/pub/dianabutlerbass/p/tim-shriver-on-the-dignity-index?r=16n46k&utm_medium=ios
This makes hard reading too, as I realise how often I’m at level 2 or 3 on the dignity index (not good) when talking about people who I disagree with. I need to improve, as I consider it very important to hold everyone in unconditional positive regard as much as I can.
I try to assume that everyone has an altruistic motive to their behaviour, even if I don’t understand it. To cherish the inherent value of people who think things I find reprehensible is really hard, but necessary if I am to understand them well enough for them to feel heard enough to be willing to hear me. This too is a work in progress.
4 - You complain that the article and my response centres men. Indeed, if it is men you want to change, and you want to have “the will to change” as bell hooks writes, then you need to present an argument that makes sense to men. A critique that says that men have been abusing women, by all means, and an insistence that this has to stop, absolutely, but it needs to be framed in a way that can be heard by the people you want to change, for example by also explaining the harm that patriarchy does to men, and why we would all be better off by dismantling patriarchy, the sooner the better.
The scene that most resonated with me in the Barbie movie was near the end when Ken vacillates between “patriarch” and “doormat”, just before being sent off to find himself.
While I unreservedly accept that life is way harder for women in our current society, it is still really difficult for most men in this society too. I think while many men want to be better, we get caught in the “patriarch/doormat” binary so well depicted in Barbie, and struggle to find the way to be strong and supportive partners without overriding or diminishing our partner in the process.
LoWa - what exactly would you like to have happen?
What should Jeremy and Clint precisely do or say that would change this for you?
I am genuinely curious.
1. Jeremy and Clint should read and reflect more widely and deeply on the household labour /management issue. I’ve put some suggested texts in an earlier comment.*
2. Then Jeremy should redo this article so it addresses root causes rather than providing lacklustre “solutions” that only perpetuate the problem he’s trying to address.
(*two other excellent text I missed are “The Emotional Load” and “The Mental Load” by French comic artist Emma, who also did a Guardian comic called “You Should Have Asked”).
Clint, the good points are still there, not “lost”. If it’s uncomfortable for you to hear them delivered in this manner, maybe think about why the “judgemental” tone you say is there is difficult for you to accept. And why would judgement be inappropriate here, in any case? Criticizing patriarchy is not arrived at rashly or unjustifiably.
If you are really a feminist, I’m surprised that such a fundamental aspect of your worldview and moral compass would be called into question by an anonymous commenter’s tone. Especially when that anonymous commenter voices anger of the standard experience of the people (women) whose equality you claim to believe in.
Sometimes I ask people if they want to be right, or if they want to be happy. The tone of your essay here is in the former camp. Ok. So, you are right. You are right about privilege, you are right about patriarchy, you are right that the author has cosied up to men at the expense of justifiable female rage.
Men bear 100% responsibility for this situation because they are all entitled bastards, and women here are 100% the helpless victims in the face of men's entitlement to our bodies, our lives, our labor, our minds.
You are absolutely right. Are you happy yet?
You want to 'smash the patriarchy'? This is a worthy goal. You know how we do that? We take responsibility. We own our power. We can stop hating and blaming the sons we failed to properly raise.
We don't live in Sparta, and our boy children aren't sent off the men's camp to learn male superiority. Men are raised by women. They are largely educated by women until after high school. Like girls, they have grandmothers and aunties and sisters. If these boys are all - as you imply, being raised to be entitled, narcissistic, lazy pigs - who exactly is responsible for this?
Men ARE struggling. My SONS are struggling (the world isn't a kind place for sensitive young men right now.. 6000 years of patriarchy be damed.) Women are struggling. We are all struggling. Women are not the only victims of the culture we have co-created.
Maybe it's just me, but after a childhood of the worst kind of abuse, with both parents as co-conspirators in physical and sexual abuse - and having turned around and married the kind of man you are excoriating above - I did my OWN work. I took responsibility for my OWN life. I decided to step out of victimhood and take my own power.
And now I am surrounded by good men; men who share the load, who care for their children and their elders, who are also fully adult. I have sons that can cook, clean, pay rent, treat women well, look out for others. I quite literally 'smashed the patriarchy' in my own home.
Because I took my power as a being that holds up more than half the fucking sky.
May I ask what led to the turnaround in your situation? Did you leave the husband and find a better way forward yourself or did the inner work you did lead your husband to change?
I personally don’t want to live in a world where the only option available to women who want to “take back their power” is to run away. I want to live in a world where men change.
I’m wary of imploring women to take more self-responsibility, pull themselves up by the bootstraps etc. - can lead to a slippery slope of victim blaming / “she was asking for it.”
Women are arguably already taking on a lot of responsibility, “Am I being kind enough? Am I generous enough? Am I forgiving enough? Assertive enough? Saying it in a nice way so he’ll listen? Gentle enough?” They don’t need to be asked to take on more; men do.
In the same vein, rather than only asking what are women doing wrong in raising their sons, we could be asking why aren’t men present and engaged in their son’s lives and what more could men do. Especially in Jeremy’s context who is writing as a man, for other men.
And I could similarly read that you are a very unhappy/angry person by the “tone” of your comment (capitalisation etc) but I think that’s a silly idea (not to mention tone policing). What do I know about your life? Maybe, as you say, you lead a good life now and are just using emphatic language to make a point that you are passionate about. You might be a calm, contented person given you’ve managed to smash the patriarchy - if so, that’s great. And anyway, women’s points are often discounted if they say them too “emotionally” so it would be extra silly for me to assume you’re angry/unhappy.
In the same vein, I see no reason anyone should assume anything about my level of happiness by my comments either. Suffice to say, I escaped some pretty dire situations a few years ago and am living the most contented life I ever have. It’s a great gift to be alive, especially when I don’t have any men draining my time, labour, energy, mental and emotional space etc on a regular basis in the home. Of course, like everyone, there’s still run-of-the-mill sexism on the streets and in the workplace but knowing I’m “right” (in feeling xyz about a situation and the fact that it probably arises from gendered and racial power dynamics) gives me a sense of ease that I perhaps would not otherwise have. So yeah, maybe it is possible to be right and happy 😊 😊
Thanks to LoWa for directing me to this thread, in the course of one of our many deep conversations. I'm learning so much from you, including how to be more direct--something many of my readers would have said I already had down. But I especially like your insight that being direct is giving the person the benefit of the doubt that they're just as strong and capable of arguing back as you. It's treating them as an equal rather than 'agreeing to disagree,' which is a passive-aggressive way of claiming the high ground while positioning the other as the belligerent. With the warning that my version of 'both-sideism' is pissing both sides off as an equal opportunity offender, I will weigh in or wade in, as the case may be.
1. Like LoWa, I am happily without men in my life, at 68 with three grown daughters and ownership of my home. My daughters are happily with men in their lives, one married, one living with a boyfriend, and one embarking on a relationship that seems very promising. The married one once told me that, during a spate of his unemployment, she had turned him into the perfect house husband. She has many good tricks, and would never say that to him, but it's working even though he now is too. The living-with-boyfriend recently told him that she 'needed him to grow with her,' by which she meant noticing what needed to be cleaned without her saying it. The other daughters and I are smirking at that, since that one was quite the slob herself until she didn't have her sister or me around to pick up after her. And the one in the new relationship is speaking her mind--something she never did in the relationship she's taken 8 yrs to recover from. She's determined not to lose herself again. I have a good feeling about both of them.
My point is that, while LoWa and I can be a little sick of playing those games and figuring out how to get what you want without driving the man away, I don't think it's possible for everyone. Namely, for those who want to be in relationship with men, whether that's lovers, partners, brothers, sons or housemates. So anything that opens up this conversation around home or family labor equity is worthwhile, especially when done by a male. IMO.
2. Goddess save me from feminist men. That may have been the instigation for this link, since LoWa and I have had extensive convos about Charles fucking Eisenstein, who stole my phrase 'tonic masculinity' and represented it as his own, and the Toxic Ten who used it as a fig leaf over their misogyny: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/eisenstein-and-the-toxic-ten. And then there's the astrologer who blocked me when I posted that men should NOT be defining 'feminine intelligence': https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/tonic-masculinity-and-feminine-wiles.
Feminist man is a contradiction in terms. It's presuming, as a man, to define what women's problems are, how they feel, and speak for them. The 'ally' stuff is bullshit. Men should speak for themselves and women will do the same. I had a date with a self-described 'fifth-wave feminist' and all he did was talk over me and 'tutor' me in how I should present my argument on my stolen tonic masculinity phrase. There was no second date.
3. Feminism went the wrong direction. Rather than women's labor making the rich richer, just like men, it should have enabled the labor of men to also serve the family and community. We now have mortgages that have risen to two incomes, so women have lost the choice to not work making the rich richer.
As LoWa knows, I've written a book on how to change this: https://www.amazon.com/How-Dismantle-Empire-2020-Vision/dp/1733347607. But in the meantime, we're stuck with no one having the time to prioritize the home and family. From my research, patriarchy and capitalism are indistinguishable. The violence that destroyed the Goddess societies and replaced them with Set/h (later called Yahweh) the sociopath also introduced coinage and taxation to usurp ownership of the land and labor. Today they go by Rothschild and we pay them 60 yrs labor (with dual incomes) to live in homes they've usurped with made-up numbers. Nothing can be fixed without changing that.
4. To call inequitable household labor 'abuse' trivializes the term in a way that will be certainly used against victims of violent and sexual abuse. I'm not saying there aren't compounding factors that would make it abuse, but doing only 30% of the housework doesn't qualify. The problem comes when women have no ability to walk away--and that is a systemic problem, not a problem that can be changed by changing individual men.
5. The old trope was 'A woman's place is in the home.' I would reverse that to 'The home and children's place is belonging to the woman.' Women are homebodies, domestic goddesses. We see and care how it looks, how it feels, where everything goes. Men are semi-feral, and I'm debating the semi-.
During the 9500 yrs when God was a woman, home ownership was matrilineal with the temple grounds accommodating all women and children who wanted to live without men. Paternity wasn't a thing. If a man lived in a woman's home, he did so as a guest and kicking a mother and kids out of their home was as unthinkable as a male bluejay claiming the nest and kicking out the chicks.
Homes have been made overly precious by the Rothschild patriarchy. If men were free to work with their hands, something men enjoy and are good at, women would be free to manage their own households with no sense of scarcity. I never wanted my ex to do the emotional labor of psychoanalyzing my daughters--that's our favorite hobby! I never wanted him to have strong opinions about how things should look and feel and function. I needed him to back up my decisions--something he did inconsistently, according to the oldest. I am VERY competent in caring for the people and places in my life. I have the equivalent of a Masters in Refrigerator Feng Shui alone ;-) We don't need men to take half the responsibility, we need authority to match the responsibility we take.
In sum, I agree with LoWa that Jeremy's 'story in his head' is all about him and his feelings. It's hard enough to fight patriarchal capitalism without needing to coddle men into 'joining our cause' or protect the egos of our 'allies.' As Jeremy says, the patriarchy hurts men. Do something about that, and I have plenty of ideas on how if Jeremy needs them.
I disagree with NS that anger is ever justified, or guilt useful. Guilt makes people behave badly. I agree with Em that kid brothers can be handled with kid gloves and it doesn't take anything away from the 'purity' of the cause. I agree with Clint that he may as well not bother to be an ally. And I agree that Slightly Lucid is more than slightly, and a being who holds up more than half the fucking sky.
ps And in Sparta, it was considered a woman's right to get herself pregnant by the most handsome man she could find--and leave the child rearing of half the population up to the men. We may want to consider this, ladies ...
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.
I have a great male partner who cares deeply about equality and yet when we had a kid I also slid so easily into a role that assumed the majority of responsibility. It was weird and it freaked me out and I’m still trying to unpack it.
R.e. Relationships, I’ve personally found it to be most helpful when I stepped back and looked at the way I showed up in them. If there was resentment, it usually had to do with my codependent tendencies where I played the role of “caretaker” or “fixer,” choosing partners that needed constant emotional support (or avoidant types who didn’t actually want a long-term relationship). Now I’m in the middle of further self discovery while in a relationship, but it feels different when each of us has the mental space to grow as individuals and a unit. If both parties are able to recognize their patterns, they can both move forward together instead of using the relationship to reenact their pasts.
For some, I could see how it's a tricky discussion, but I think it's worth tackling like you have.
My wife and I role-reversed almost 2 years ago where she went back to work and I became the stay-at-home dad and home schooled our kids. It was very eye opening for us to see what the other one experienced daily.
One thing that's worked well for us over the years is that we set the baseline that during the day we acknowledge that we are both at work- even when I was at my job, we both treated it like we had each done an 8 hr work day and when I would get home, it was almost like a reset for the rest of the day : every job and responsibility in the home was shared (or made the effort to as much as possible).
This might not be the right fit for everyone, but for the 16 yrs that we've been married, we've found that it's generally worked quite well.
Thanks for reading and sharing, Steve! That approach totally makes sense to me.
Setting that baseline (you both worked a full day, and now it is second shift) seems reasonable enough UNTIL you put it in practice and discover things like: who is noticing that the kids have outgrown some of their clothes and need new ones? Who plans that shopping trip? Who budgets for it? Who takes the kids, tries on the new shoes, nes coats, new shirts, with them complaining all the way usually? Who returns home exhusted to find their partner sitting on the couch playing video games, it having not occurred to him to start some damn dinner? Who starts the dinner, and who shopped for it and meal planned the week to make sure everyone has what everyone needs and food allerigies are considered? Who cleans up from it and jots what's running out on the shopping list? Who remembers that Susie has a ballet class planned for next fall and needs to register before spring break? Who gets her new ballet shoes? Who plans and executes the kids' doctor and dentist checkups? Who buys presents for all the grandparents and gets the kids to send a drawing and a card, and sits down to do that, and mails them, and organizes regular Zooms for the inlaws and outlaws to stay connected? Who imagines, consults on, budgets, plans the family vacation? Who remembers all that, plus remembers to (for example) get the gutters cleaned out and the termite bond renewed and inspected?, and who schedules it and supervises it and and and and
If you have read this far you should be exhausted at the mental load of which I have described a FRACTION. Men, honestly, may do some fraction of it---ideally so that the woman does NOT have to even thinkabout that, in the same way men do not even have to think about (fill in the blank), and it's usually keeping up with the yard and the cars, or one of the cars. Or taking on some fraction of the chore-work llike bathing kids and putting them to bed, or cleaning up from dinner, or taking out garbage, or doing some of the laundry. And that is great but it isn't even close to what needs to be happening for fairness to reign.
Or "helping"---I love that, hah, "helping": who is in charge of ALL OF THAT AND MORE, and who drops in now and them to "help"? Oh yeah, I appreciate the help but what I really need is an equal partner who takes initiative and sees what needs to be done without having to be told, who takes total responsibility for HALF OF THE WORK so the other person does not even have to think about it. Men, when was the last time you had ALL OF THIS plus things like your kids' best friend's birthday is coming up and you start planning a shopping trip and wrapping paper and the outfit the kid will wear and so on...
In nearly every household women are doing ALL THAT MENTAL PLANNING AND EXECUTING. ALL THE TIME. So you, the man, may come home after work at the same time she, the woman, does, and you relax, kick off your shoes, watch a movie after dinner? Meanwhile she is doing allllll that mental load stuff and you call her a nag when she mentions it. It is so disappointing.
So... I'm not convinced that the plan listed above even touches mental load and organizing/planning. And I am not at all convinced that men actually want to change the status quo, because their lives would be so much worse if they actually had to do all this. It is not a coincidence that women are getting a clue and choosing to be child free and/or to live independently of men. I find this sad, because I really like the men in my life and think they are great. But there's no doubt they are benefiting from the free work---and tons of it---of women, work that they are willfully clueless and defensive about. Again, I find this very sad for everyone.
I think this essay starts well and addresses an important problem. But I run into trouble wth it at this point:
"This doesn’t mean just being subservient and saying things like, “What do you need me to do?” "
It's not subservience, it's cluelessness! (Or something else less benign than cluelessness.) That question --- "what do you need me to do?" dumps the entire responsibiity for the functioning of your collective lives on the woman, and you, the man, are a helper, willing to help, to lend a hand to the person whose responsibility it is, and asking for a list (passive aggressively in some cases, or pretending to be willing in some cases, but genuinely wanting to "help" in some cases). This question takes zero responsibility except as a minor player or auxiliary "assistant" to the person who actually owns all that work. And sure, some assistance may be better than nothing, but it's not an equal relationship or an equal contribution to the household.
Men manage to take initiative to see what needs to be done at work. Men manage to take initiative to see what needs to be done with their man-toys (my boat needs a better engine; I need to repaint that woodworking shed before winter; I want to be one of the first to play that new video game and discuss it with my gamer bros; etc). Men manage to tke initiative for sex. Men, I truly believe, are not stupid at all, though some people accuse them of it. I believe men are smart and capable and hardworking WHEN THEY WANT TO BE, but what a sweet deal they have, someone keeping the boring and annoying parts of their lives running smoothly in the background freeing them up for, well, for living their lives.
So "what do you need me to do?" comes off more than a little self-serving, even if it is only a naive question.
SOMEONE did your laundry and shopped for groceries and planned a vacation and got the kids their new clothes and so on and so on, and you just let that all happen... because... well, not because you are stupid! In fact if someone did all that for me, I'd maybe never want to rock the boat and mess up the sweet deal of having a full time servant and sex-provider and childbearer and family organizer and chef and shopper and child psychologist and you name it. Give that up? Why would any smart person give that up?
Unless, of course, I looked at that someone doing all that as an equal human being, saw the insane inequity of it, and decided to stop taking advantage of that someone.
But the beginning of this article is a good start. I don't understand the pushback. Well, maybe I do understand it, but it's a shame.
26 years happily married now but this is why I will never marry again. I know I internalized what being a good wife and mom was, so much so it took me until middle school to remember that when I was in middle school I was responsible for my own laundry, hygiene, homework, social schedule so why was I doing it for my sons? There was a lot to unpack. My kids are in their early 20’s now but the relationship dynamics are totally different now.
I can’t imagine doing this with a stranger - I don’t have to band width to invest this much in another human.
I find it funny how so many men claim they are so good at leadership, how they are the leaders of the household, and then become entirely incompetent at actually leading the second it’s required of them.
They can’t plan things, they can’t organize the tasks, they can’t think ahead. They get offended when their wife expects them to do literally any of this, calling it “micromanaging” and “nagging”. They want her to just tell him what to do - the perfect soldier, the ultimate submissive.
If they truly wanted to be the leaders of the household, or even an equitable member, they would take the initiative. They aren’t not taking the initiative because they are too stupid to do so, and need a man to tell them that hey, maybe contribute to your household and your wife won’t nag you so much. They are just laying about waiting to be told because it suits them to have their wife take on all the responsibilities of managing daily life.
I’m so happy for you that you are one of the #GoodOnes who actually participate in your house as an equal partner, and that you felt the need to reassure us all of that fact. But I think this article isn’t going to change anybody’s minds. Men know it is unfair. This kind of men does not care, and will not change unless forced to do so.
Thanks for reading and commenting. I disagree that it's because men who don't help out with household management are stupid. I think we've been socialized that way by a society that devalues household labor and caring for others, and men have been trained from a young age that so-called "real work" outside the home is what we should focus on the most. It's going to take a transformation in the way we organize society (capitalism) for what society values to shift. I'm going to keep trying to play my part in that.
I think it’s an admirable take to want to improve the behaviour of men and get them to value “women’s work”. But they do know how valuable it is. It becomes far too exhausting and tiring whenever they are asked to participate, and they can’t possibly because “they had a long day at work” or some other reason.
I think you misread my comment - I don’t think men who don’t help out with household management are stupid. I explicitly think they are not stupid, and they recognize the effort and time it takes to do it. That’s why they don’t want to, and use any excuse to get out of doing it.
I agree with your intentions, and I think it is something more men should strive to do. But my point is that you’re approaching it as if men need to value caring and household labour more. They do value it, they know how important it is.
There’s an interesting quote from Lundy Bancroft, an expert on men like this:
“All this uncompensated labour from her means leisure for him… they don’t make the connection that someone takes care of the work; they think of it as just mysteriously getting done and refer to women as ‘lazy’.
On a deeper level, the [man] seems to realize how hard his partner works, because he fights like hell not to have to share that burden. He is accustomed to his luxury and often talks exaggeratedly about his exhaustion to excuse staying on his rear end.”
Sorry for misreading your comment. Totally my mistake! But for what it’s worth, I didn’t realize how valuable so-called “women’s work” (nurturing relationships, managing the family, etc.) truly is until recently. In my experience as a boy and a young man, that stuff was ignored or looked down on. I got the message that “real” work and my career was most important and I should neglect that other stuff because it isn’t worth anything. So I disagree that men know better. Some might. But the vast majority I encounter don’t.
You should watch 50/50 by Garfunkel and Oates. Consider if they have chosen traditional roles.
I’m waiting for the day when executive function is mixed into this conversation more from the perspective of brain science. Nearly all of what we refer to as adulting and invisible labor is executive function.
Male children have executive function subsidized or fully provided mostly by their mothers. Then by mostly female teachers in school (giving them assignments with specific criteria, specific due dates, repeated reminders). Then again by wives when they become husbands and partners and fathers. And again, too, by mostly female executive assistants and secretaries when they become leaders at work.
At what point in life is a man ever responsible and successful with 100% of his own “adulting”? What did his single adult life look like with no woman in it? Does he take care of himself amazingly well on his own but then slack off once partnered with a woman? Or was he barely alive on cold pizza and week-old underwear when she met him?
Aw thank you for the kind words and for sharing your important perspective and experience!
I saw a lot of my own marriage reflected in your descriptions, even though I am not in a heterosexual relationship. I am AFAB agender, and my spouse is a woman. I don't know if me being Autistic contributes to the dynamic, but I think it must, to some degree, because I have significant executive functioning challenges. My wife is the "manager" of virtually all of the duties of keeping our household running. We've been married for 32 years, and the way we communicate regarding household stuff has changed over the years. I think the thing that has contributed more than anything else to our ability to continually grow and refine our relationship has been that we are both in the practice of "owning our own shit" and willingly sitting in the discomfort of hearing and trusting in the validity of the other person's perspective. Our marriage isn't perfect, of course, and openly acknowledging that fact actually relieves a lot of the pressure around resolving our disagreements and misunderstandings when they arise. I am a life-long social justice activist, and greatly appreciate your attention to how systemically enforced gender norms impact this dynamic. That being said, my lived experience points to the importance of this being an issue that must be addressed both on the cultural level, and also on the personal level. I am thrilled to have stumbled upon your writing, because this systemic vs. personal thing is so often presented as an either/or, and you so eloquently point out that is a both/and. Thank you!
I agree with Steve, the first commenter. Just reading the section of your piece about planning a new kindergartener’s medical forms spiked my anxiety, and I literally don’t understand how parents are able to manage full or part-time work and manage the household. I feel like I’m barely able to take care of myself, our cats, and our home. I tend to say out loud what needs to happen, which helps my brain acknowledge the task, whether we have to do it right away or not. I might say “Ah, we need to take out the recycling at some point.” Or “Remember, we need to schedule the cats’ next vet appointment.” There are things I need to specifically ask my partner to do if I’m feeling overwhelmed, but otherwise I’m generally OK splitting the duties of our household like we tend to do with expenses.
I agree that it’s difficult, and I find it most helpful to acknowledge where we both are in terms of capacity, energy, and availability with what we can handle. I try to avoid resentment by asking for help when it is needed and not keeping score, and managing my own expectations of each of our strengths and how we can leverage them to work together. Again, no comment on child-rearing as that seems to be a full-time position unto itself, but I think frequent check-ins and being honest with our capacity (and using “we” to refer to household responsibilities) helps to lessen the burden. Life is stressful enough without building unnecessary tension at home.
I love the “we” thing! I used to be bothered by it (and it can be used sometime to avoid more direct language and accountability). But I realized that was my avoidance speaking. My partner and I use it a lot now!
I missed this when it was first posted. Wasn’t on Substack. I want to add that from my own experience — and this might be useful to you as a therapist, Jeremy — the problem is less the fact that women and men struggle to manage the social pressures and definitions of “a good wife and a good husband” and more that we suck at negotiating our personal realities around these expectations.
We come into relationship with social expectations and personal role models baked in the last century. And we establish ourselves in new relationship with these forces at work. Even if we negotiate a little from the outset, we don’t know each other as well as we know these forces working inside us.
Then reality hits. Kids. Life. Stress. We fall back on unconscious patterns. We get stuck and want things to change. And we are terrible at negotiating with each other to change them. When one asks to renegotiate an agreement the other gets triggered. We don’t even see the agreements we have in place. So we fight about things we can’t change (social expectation) instead of things we can change (our own frame on them and each other).
I’d love for there to be more visibility into what a healthy discussion between women and men on these topics might look like. I’m getting tired of the same old tropes (women do the adulting and men chafe at being micromanaged). It’s true and it’s also not helpful anymore. The reframe was useful for helping us see it. Now we need to move beyond it.
Thank you, Jeremy, for trying in writing to work through these messy but important areas of life! It frustrates me that my husband shuts off his brain when he gets home (that’s how he describes it to me) and that I have a difficult time getting him to see how much unseen planning and prep labor I carry for our family (the doctor visits and kid clothes and making sure everyone has toothpaste, etc.).
Thanks for reading and commenting, Jennifer! I want to write something about that "turning the brain off" that many people but it seems like particularly men want to feel after work. It sounds like dissociation, which is a way of resting the brain. And I want to write about it in the context of the unequal distribution of household labor (because of patriarchal capitalism). Hope to write about it soon!
Thank you for this, Jeremy! Thank you for being someone participating in this conversation. I was going to say I wish I could plausibly send some fellas in your direction for support but it turns out you're in Baltimore? I'm in southern PA--so I actually could! 'Til that opportunity arises, I'll share your articles.
Thank you! I do men’s retreats around the area so send em my way :)
We feel exactly as you described, Jeremy. I feel like I am always keeping track of things alone and my partner feels like I am checking to see where he makes mistakes.
We talk a lot and keep discussing this, and I sent him your piece, which resonated with him.
I have learned through our discussions that if I make my expectations regarding the share of work transparent he won't feel "ordered about" and instead will take up chores and management without me asking. He learned that me being critical of undesired outcomes of chores doesn't extend to him as a partner and a person in general.
I wish I could expect my partner to have received a different upbringing, one that would make him better at taking care of an household but he didn't and that's not a reflection of his character. A reflection of his character it's if he's willing to listen when I tell him that his contributions, even with the best of intentions, are sometimes insufficient and he needs to step up because I am not going to have a partner I need to mother.
But to be quite frank I didn't want to enter an heterosexual relationship before meeting my partner precisely because I dreaded having to discuss the uneven division of labor that would inevitably happen.
And I still feel that the weight of educating adult men on this falls still almost fully on women's shoulders and that makes me angry and also makes me feel like I "gave in" to societal expectations I didn't want to fulfill.
The only good book I’ve ever read on this topic was written by Matthew Fray, yes, a man, titled This is How Your Marriage Ends. I’ve had experienced female counselors not understand about women’s hidden labor and frustrations what Matthew Fray does and states simply, in easy to understand terms.
Here’s the takeaway message fellas: doing your fair share of the housework is not actually about the housework, it’s about understanding your partner’s needs and fulfilling them. While you’re thinking you’re being nagged to put a glass in the dishwasher or underwear in the hamper, your wife feels betrayed and hurt and will eventually see you as a child, not the man she married and our female sex drives are turned to zero when see you as less than a man.
♥️
What about things like this?
https://micahlarsen.substack.com/p/5-types-of-invisible-labor-you-might