“Where’s My Cut?”: On Unpaid Emotional Labor
I am not a big fan of psychic charlatanry, which often preys on people who are in genuine grief. So when I read about psychic fraud Priscilla Kelly Delmaro, arrested in May for second-degree grand larceny, I should have felt smug about her downfall. Delmaro had induced a male client to give her over $700,000 worth of payment and gifts, including a diamond ring and a Rolex – all in exchange for her mystic advice on how to woo a woman, Michelle, who’d made her lack of interest very clear. Technically the diamond was to “protect his energy,” the Rolex was to “go back and cleanse his past,” and some of the money was to build an 80-mile solid gold bridge into the spirit world, but that was the general formula: woman has no interest, man needs to feel hope, Delmaro is willing to provide that hope for a price.
Psychics in New York are supposed to clarify that their services are “for entertainment purposes only,” but Delmaro was clearly advertising concrete results, even if some of them (like the bridge) were also intangible. It was obviously a con, and thus probably a more justified arrest than two-thirds of the ones NYPD made that day.
But that wasn’t my first thought when I read this story. My first thought was “how do I get in on this game?”
Here’s the part that made me thoughtfully stroke my imaginary beard:
Ms. Delmaro told him the trouble had come from a spirit that was stalking him. She needed $28,000, then $28,000 more. Michelle had grown cold so suddenly, he thought, that the spirit explanation sounded right, and so he paid.
Recall that this was a woman who’d made it explicitly clear that she had no romantic feelings for this fellow. A reasonable person might note Michelle’s complete lack of interest and come up with a few more plausible explanations for her coldness than “evil spirits.” But for this guy to follow that thread, he’d have to give up on an article of deeply-held faith: that any woman he wants is rightfully his and just needs to be collected. Much easier to believe in poltergeists, and pay to have them removed.
Believe it or not, I’m not unsympathetic to the man, who must be very lonely. But when I see how desperate he was to have his delusion of entitlement confirmed, when I read that he found “Michelle is influenced by evil spirits” easier to swallow than “Michelle is a human being with preferences and agency,” I find it harder to feel too sorry that someone took him for what he was willing to pay. “Men gonna men,” as the New Yorker’s Caitlin Kelly tweeted; they often ignore women’s explicit stated opinions, and it’s always annoying, so why not get a Rolex out of the deal? The real travesty is that Michelle didn’t get a cut. The other travesty is that I didn’t think of it first.
*
Of course, I don’t really want to make a living giving men false hope. But what if I wanted to make a living yelling at them about why their false hope is dumb?
This is a thing I do frequently now for free. Somehow, despite increasingly noisy misandry, I have amassed a small cadre of men who think I’m a good person to confide in. These are friends and partners, so it goes without saying that they are generally not confiding fucked-up attitudes about women, but they’re also straight men with feelings; consequently, I’ve seen my share of “how do I make her fall back in love with me,” “how do I make her regret rejecting me,” “how do I change her mind.”
The answers are “you can’t,” “you can’t,” and “you can’t,” respectively, but I’ve come up with enough different ways of saying this that occasionally one gets through. It’s something I’m happy to do for the people I care about, but it is not effortless. I’ve fielded hundreds of late-night texts, balanced reassurance with tough love, hammered away at stubborn beliefs, sometimes even taken (shudder) phone calls. I’ve actually been on agony aunt duty for male friends since high school, so if it’s true that it takes 10,000 hours of practice to become an expert at something, counseling bereft dudes may in fact be my only expert skill.
And yet, it is basically impossible to monetize, short of demanding funds to build a gold bridge. Not that I’d charge my friends – but I don’t charge to edit stuff for them either, nor do usually they charge me when they knit me something or draw me a picture or feed my dog. Yet that work is still considered to have value. I’ve offered to pay for dogsitting, they’ve offered to pay for editing; often we arrange some kind of barter in lieu of payment. If we wanted to charge someone else money for these services, it would not be considered absurd. But emotional labor? Offering advice, listening to woes, dispensing care and attention? That’s not supposed to be transactional. People are disturbed by the very notion that someone would charge, or pay, for friendly support. It’s supposed to come free.
Why?
*
In May, Lauren Chief Elk (@ChiefElk) started the Twitter hashtag #GiveYourMoneyToWomen, based on a conversation with @cheuya and Bardot Elle Smith (@BardotSmith). The basic idea behind the hashtag is that a woman’s time and regard has value – it cannot be had for nothing. Men like to act as if commanding women’s attention is their birthright, their natural due, and they are rarely contradicted. It’s a radical act to refuse them that attention. It’s even more radical to propose that if they want it so fucking much, they can buy it.
The originators and adherents of #GiveYourMoneyToWomen didn’t just suggest that women should get paid for existing, although yeah that too if you’re buying. Rather, women should get paid for all the work they typically do for free – all the affirmation, forbearance, consultation, pacifying, guidance, tutorial, and weathering abuse that we spend energy on every single day. Imagine a menu of emotional labor: Acknowledge your thirsty posturing, $50. Pretend to find you fascinating, $100. Soothe your ego so you don’t get angry, $150. Smile hollowly while you make a worse version of their joke, $200. Explain 101-level feminism to you like you’re five years old, $300. Listen to your rant about “bitches,” $infinity.
It was beautiful to watch #GiveYourMoneyToWomen unfold. Men got angry, and then women explained to them that to have their anger acknowledged, they would have to pay. This made them angrier, of course, but without a donation, who was listening? Even now, when you Google the hashtag, nearly the whole first results page consists of furious MRAs. (I didn’t click through, though. Who exactly was going to make it worth my while?)
Tags: emotional labor, feminism, friendship, jess zimmerman
Related Posts
The Emotional Progression Of Realizing Your Friend Isn’t Coming Over After All
I’m Getting Really Tired of My Mysterious Flaky Friend
What Writing a Novel Taught Me About Female Friendship
Friendship in the Pool: My Life as a Synchronized Swimmer
You Think You Have Time: Hiking the Lowest to Highest Trail
“Who Is Cagney Without Lacey?”: The Fug Girls on Writing as a Duo
About Author
by Jess Zimmerman
Jess Zimmerman makes sentences on the internet and enjoys misandry and subtweets.
oh my gaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwd yes.
Ha ha oh yeah based on this monetization theory I should be good for about a million bucks now which would really help my current impecunious financial sitn…nice article strongly written.
"Maybe I really should hang out a psychic shingle, and tell men I can give them insight into the minds of the women who spurned them. Sure, all the tarot cards come up as the Queen of Brass Knuckles, representing a woman who already goddamn told you she wasn’t interested, but each time I read it directly from her mind!" I think there's a viable career in this, if you can stomach listening to all that whining. I myself would rather write database code, but as long as you don't promise to cure cancer or provide some other tangible benefit beyond explaining Why Your Lovelife Sucks, sure, why not? Extra points if you can actually slip some civilizing influence in there disguised as mystical babble. ;)
Yes. Yes to everything
"But we absolutely get to recognize that the constant labor of placating men and navigating patriarchal expectations is exhausting because it’s work." SO MUCH YES.
hell yes. all of this was amazing, but THAT LINE
Where was this line? I love it – but I just reread this a few more times to find it and can't!
Christ on a pony, YES TO ALL OF IT.
This is VERY interesting!! I will be pondering.
goddammit. I wish I had thought of this in high school when boys were suddenly being super nice and wanting to be friends with me to get to my best friend. $10 a minute on AIM please! Including retroactive payment when your intentions become clear.
oh man, honestly, maybe this is awful of me, but this is a big part of the reason why I don't have close male friends. Great article, Jess, and it led me to your twitter which I am currently enjoying immensely instead of working like I should be…
I have slowly but surely rid myself of close male friends, all of whom slowly realized that I meant it when I said, after literally hours and hours of listening to them bemoan their girl problems/job search woes/mommy issues, "I can't help you with this anymore. You need to find a therapist." And then I stuck to my guns. And then I stuck to my guns some more. It's amazing how, when the faucet of head-petting is turned off, they have no interest in the pleasure of my company. My life is infinitely better because of this.
You know, it really makes me feel better to hear that – so thanks! This in particular struck close to home – "It's amazing how, when the faucet of head-petting is turned off, they have no interest in the pleasure of my company." For me and several dudes I was formerly friends with, it was a combination of that, plus it finally becoming clear to them that I was not interested in being more than friends. I got tired of doing that dance with guys a while ago, and I can't say I actually feel like my life is poorer for not having close male friends – I have guy friends, but none who I'd call close. Maybe someday, but in the meantime, I've got my lady friends and that seems to be working just fine!
I totally get that. It's worse when you're single. Like you should be grateful that guys want to bestow their emotional bullshit on you because, hey, you don't have a husband to do it for you. An extremely rude and confrontational guy in my group of friends once asked me why I never talked to him and pretty much ignored his existence. My response, that I find him a deeply unpleasant person, shocked him. He thought we were playing some kind of flirty game. The fact that a guy in his late 30's had to be schooled to the fact that life is not a rom com where "brooding arsehole" is some kind of panty-dropper, just puts me off dude friendships. I don't have the time or inclination to continually have to define the boundaries of acceptable behaviour just because I have tits.
I feel like emotional labour is more of a gift thing? Like when you're giving or receiving a gift you don't keep track of how much either of them cost. There's a social understanding that it's not about getting equal value but about building a bond. If I got a present from someone, I would consider it churlish of them to demand equal monetary compensation for it in return. Don't get me wrong, but I don't really feel that it's something men feel entitled to (although some of them do) so much as they're offended that you're keeping track, in dollars, of how much it's worth rather than considering it something you're doing for a friend. I won't deny that the brunt of this work is shouldered by women, though.
…. or maybe I misunderstood the article, idk.
I think that part of the point though is that emotional labor is not seen as a "gift," it's seen as an obligation. When you receive a gift from someone, you say thank you, you recognize that the gift has monetary value (i.e., you would have paid for it had you procured it yourself). Emotional labor isn't treated that way. Which doesn't mean that you can't give it as a gift to a friend, but that generosity should be recognized.
Precisely. I am more than happy to do nice things for my friends – cook for them, buy them little gifts, and give them whatever emotional support they need – but when the transaction becomes too one-sided, I can't keep it up. I look at it as a well of good faith. You can draw on it all you like, but if you don't either fill it up occasionally or give it time to bounce back, eventually you're going to hit bottom.
I have had friends (and significant others) who expected that sort of support while being completely unable or unwilling to give it in return. It's something that was simply expected and taken for granted, but whenever I needed the same sort of understanding, it wasn't there, and I was made to feel like a bad person for wanting some recognition of the value of what I was providing – either in gratitude or reciprocation.
But the answer isn't to charge them money. It's to tell them your requirements for the relationship are XYZ, and if they can't meet that, then the relationship is over.
To take your present analogy and run with it: of course it would be churlish to give someone a gift and then tap your foot until they give you money for the present. That's not a present. But say you're invited to your friend's birthday party, and you give them a present. You invite them to your birthday party, and they do not bring you a present–no apology, no explanation, they just don't. You might feel miffed, you might feel hurt, you might feel let down. You might even forgive them for forgetting once, but what if it happens every single year at every single pair of birthday parties? Women are constantly expected to be the ones offering up their shoulder to cry on. And it is something you do for a friend, but it is an effort, and it takes a toll on you if you are always the one giving and never the one receiving. Men are generally not expected to provide that in return to women. To me, that strain is what the article is talking about, perhaps with some exaggeration to make a point–Men aren't holding up their end socially, so let's charge 'em money for it instead.
OR, say you show up at your friend's house, not at their birthday just a regular day. And they let you in and then they say 'so, where's my present?'. And if you don't give it to them, they get mad and tell you you're a bad friend.
All these things ARE gifts. But like most gifts worth giving, they are ALSO work. Hard work, sometimes. Exhausting work. And when you're the only one doing them, when not doing them means that you are 'being a bad friend', when the other person expects them as the price of friendship with them… well, it's terrible, and we should all quit being friends with that person.
This is a very accurate description of my last relationship.
If that's true, then we need to explain why society feels men are better men when they don't give this "gift." We have built an entire culture around the idea that men who don't share their feelings or emotionally connect with and support those around them are somehow manlier men. The stoic, silent, unsupportive, uncommunicative, unemotional men are held up as paragons of manhood.
Men who actually provide emotional support to others are "acting like women" or "beta males" or "weak" or "gay" or "friendzoned" or pick-your-derogatory-term-here.
So. If emotional support is a gift, then why do only women need to show up with that gift in hand to every interaction?
Fair point. I guess my original post was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction. To me, expecting money for emotional support just feels like its value is cheapened? I do think women should not be the only ones showing up with that gift, but I think it should be repaid in emotional support (which I feel is more valuable) rather than in money.
Yes, but I think #GiveWomenYourMoney was tongue-in-cheek. My impression is that the goal was more to make men realize that they're not reciprocating emotionally than to actually extract cash.
Maybe the tag should be #GiveWomenYourEmotionalSupport
or #ThankWomenForEmotionalSupport
Sure. In a good relationship, all your free gifts are returned in like kind. You repay housework with housework, intimacy with intimacy, support with support, etc. But the point of the article is that we've constructed a society around the idea of unequal "trades" – men show up with financial support, for example, and women show up with housework and emotional support.
That's fine in theory – you can barter whatever for whatever, if you want – but in reality, the men are seen as showing up with a "real" present, while women are seen as showing up with a dumb present, a present that really isn't worth anything, like the man is arriving with a bottle of wine and the woman is showing up with a stick drawing she doodled in the car.
The argument in this article is that as long as women's gifts aren't being seen as valuable, we should withhold them until someone is willing to demonstrate that they do have value – by offering us an unequivocally valuable commodity in trade.
It's not serious. It's not like you'd literally start charging your friends and spouse for emotional support and they'd start charging you. It's just a point – if you couldn't get it any other way than by paying for it, you would pay for it. It has value. It shouldn't be seen as something that just happens automatically in a good relationship. It's not. It takes effort, it takes work, and women shouldn't be the only ones putting that work in.
" while women are seen as showing up with a dumb present, a present that really isn't worth anything,"
Unless it's sex. A lot of men seem to be more than willing to pay for that "gift".
// To me, expecting money for emotional support just feels like its value is cheapened? //
That right there is the ideology the author is pointing at. The idea that some kinds of labour should be given freely nearly always attaches to labour provided by people in economically and structurally weaker positions, and it keeps those people in economically weaker positions by telling them their work is // soooo valuable // that they shouldn't be paid for it.
Fine if you have other independent means, but a real bugger if you actually need money to live on, or to ensure any other kind of safety or security, and providing this kind of labour for free takes up time and energy that you need for earning money.
Also, of course, privileged people demand this kind of emotional labour from people who they do not know personally, or have an emotional relationship with. Anyone who expresses any kind of social justice on the internet is immediately inundated with, "Can you phrase this more nicely for me so it doesn't hurt my feelings / Do you have some evidence I could look at / Could you explain this idea to me / Have you got a reading list for me" "Well, frankly, you need *people like me* supporting your cause or it's not going to get very far! Congratulations, I did believe in your basic human rights but that was conditional on you being polite to me and since you haven't been I've stopped!"
I heartily agree with the first part of your comment. For the second part, though – reorganizing your own world view, too, is a shitload of emotional labor, especially when it demands things more complicated than "don't be a jerk", such as "include diverse characters in your stories, but avoid any mentions of inoccuous characterizations that have been rendered into stereotypes by racists". Being part of a marginalized group shouldn't mean you have to be an activist; being an activist, however, means that explaining things to people is part of your role definition, at least the way I view activism.
That sounds like exactly what people say about teaching, too. "You should do it because you love it," and that if you do it for money it's suddenly suspect. Though, yes, I'd like to continue to pay my mortgage, seeing as that monetary windfall never happened.
We pay therapists, counsellors and psychologists for providing emotional support. I am very suspicious of people who promote the idea that knowing the value of your labour inherantly cheapens it. Those people are usually trying to get something for free. I'm a knitter and I can't tell you how many people think I should just knit them things for free. I have to explain that a jumper is hundreds of hours work plus probably another hundred dollars in materials so if they want one, they can pay me accordingly. Its amazing how many people suddenly don't want that jumper when I monetise my time and effort. I will however, gladly knit gifts for ffriends and family. I think the key is valuing what you give others so you know where to spend your effort and where not to. Just to be clear, I'm not at all suggesting that you're one of those people since I understand what you're driving at here and I agree that "value" doesn't have to mean dollar terms.
There are two different scenarios:
1. "Alli525, oh my god I am having just the worst time of it with my ladyfriend. Do you have a couple minutes to vent this weekend over a cup of coffee (my treat of course)? You gave me some really good advice a couple months ago and I just need some tough love right now."
2. "Alli525 uggghhhhhhhhh Ladyfriend is so hard to reeeeeeead she did this and that and now i don't know what to do, why doesn't she love me, why are all women the worst??"
#1 recognizes the value of my time and advice. #2 just dumps on me and waits expectantly for me to pat him on the back and say "there there, she must be on her period." #1 gets a blue ribbon and quite possibly an invite to the next Toast Mixer. #2 is awarded no points, and may god/dess have mercy on his soul.
literally THIS. I would be over the moon if a guy did #1. And some have, in varying veins and strengths.
but #2. Number twwwooooo whhhhhyyyy. Also in that vein, guys who dump that thought in my inbox, about *any* subject, and then expect me to fall over myself in responding to it. Literally even saying,"hey, so you don't have anything to say about this?"
NO BECAUSE I'M EXHAUSTED AND THIS DOESN'T REQUIRE A RESPONSE.
Yes! I just realized that a lot of the too-much I've given people is because I feel compelled to respond to something that doesn't require a response. Thank you for making me realize that. My goodness.
"Alli525, oh my god I am having just the worst time of it with my ladyfriend. Do you have a couple minutes to vent this weekend over a cup of coffee (my treat of course)? You gave me some really good advice a couple months ago and I just need some tough love right now."
I will commit this line to memory. Thank you for this. I been realizing I've been guilty of what this article talks about, and I don't want to take over my friends' lives with my problems.
———-
For all the rhetoric about protecting workers, a lot of opposition to sex work comes down to “this should not be sold, for reasons.” That moralizing, paternalistic viewpoint – “please ignore the fact that there’s a market for this, because we think it shouldn’t have monetary value” – has roots in common with Horwood’s call to “get a job.”
———-
I think this part is confused. Most opposition to prostitution that I've seen (including my own) isn't based on the idea that sex should be provided freely to all, like emotional support to friends (and that's the argument, isn't it, that "that's what friends are for"), but that sex is too important to sell. Housework is considered worthless, but sex is priceless, if you can find a less cutesy phrasing. Because sex is so personal, selling it like cigarettes or babysitting devalues it and the woman selling it (even without human trafficking). I mean, yes, I think that sex should be provided freely, but only in the sense that if someone does not freely and enthusiastically want to have sex with you, then you have no business trying to get her to have sex with you at all. And I still don't think that's sufficient.
Except when terms like "worthless" and "priceless" are used as rhetorical cover for men's neverending gimme-gimme-gimme.
But in most cases of opposition to prostitution, they're not. We're not saying prostituted women should give it away for free. We're saying that prostitution is bad for women, so they should avoid it and be supported in that, and also that MEN NEED TO LEARN TO KEEP IT IN THEIR PANTS. I honestly don't see how opposing prostitution should have anything to do with demanding free sex for men.
But why should men keep it in their pants? If there's a consensual way to live out your sexuality, why not? Just because that way involves compensating another person doesn't mean it's wrong. A better argument against prostitution is that it can expose sex workers to lots of dangers, assaults, risks, and often those risks aren't taken seriously by society (like the idea that prostitutes can't be raped, or if someone gets an STI they deserved it, etc). But arguing that prostitution is bad for women because men need to keep it in their pants — that argument silences all the sex workers who are not necessarily women, silences and rather infantilizes men's/clients' sexual desires (which are often considered deviant by society, and deviance is always a complex sociological happening), and reduces a person's momentary choice of employment to a moral issue. Why is sex so special that it shouldn't be considered like other industries? In many ways, my dental hygiene, for example, is more complex and private than my vagina.
Sorry for the rambling comment! This is a really interesting issue and I love hearing all sides of it. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
That comment was mostly meant as a response to Bibliophibian's remark about "rhetorical cover for men's neverending gimme-gimme-gimme." I.e. I'm trying to do the exact opposite–to oppose men's neverending gimme-gimme-gimme. I didn't mean that "prostitution is bad for women *because* men need to keep it in their pants," rather that prostitution is bad for women and therefore men should stop expecting to be able to get everything they want, whether they buy it or demand it as a gift. (I know that not all prostitutes are women, but most of them are, and so the dangers tend to land mostly on women.)
I do think that sex is different from and more personal than other human activities. This is a risky way to explain it, but: pretty much everyone agrees that rape is way, way, way more terrible than robbery or not paying your dentist. That only really makes sense if sex is different from goods and services: if sex is just like other goods and services, and selling sex is just like other goods and services, why isn't taking sex just like taking other goods and services? Because it's very clearly not. (I am not saying that rape and prostitution are the same. I am only saying that this might help me explain my point.)
You are conflating several things here that are not like each other.
– there is no such thing as "taking sex", there is only sex which is consensual or not consensual
– sex which is not consensual is rape or sexual assault
– forcing a sex worker to perform acts which they have not consented to is rape or sexual assault
– if A deceives B into performing sexual acts, such as by claiming they are going to pay them and then not doing, B may or may not define that as rape or sexual assault, but it is up to B to make that call, just as it is in any other situation
– raping a sex-worker is not "having sex with them and not paying". It is HAVING SEX WITH THEM WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. Because that is rape and it is a violent act. But as in any other sexual encounter, it is the consent that matters, not the payment. A client can pay a sex-worker and still rape them. A client can have sex with a sex-worker, and not pay and a sex-worker gets to decide whether the non-payment negates zir consent or not.
I don't know what you are defining as "taking sex", but honesty, this is a really creepy way to think about sex-workers' physical autonomy. Raping a sex-worker is not like "not paying your dentist" because raping a sex-worker is not defined by whether or not you paid them.
You sound really confused about what is a property/contract crime and what is a violent assault. Sex-workers are not confused about the difference! They are really pretty clear about the difference! I honestly recommend you read some sex-workers writing about assault and how they define their work, because it might be eye-opening for you.
Augh, this kind of misunderstanding is exactly why I was afraid of posting. Here's what I'm going for:
(0) This is a response to citystillbreath, who asked "Why is sex so special that it shouldn't be considered like other industries?" and was first to use dentistry as an example of another industry.
(1) If trading sex as a commodity were morally equivalent to trading other services, like dentistry, as commodities, then violating the terms of that trade by forcing someone to provide sex (which is what I meant by "taking"–I thought it would be clear that that was an analogy, since the whole thing was) would be morally equivalent to forcing someone to provide dentistry.
(2) Forcing someone to provide sex is obviously very different from and much worse than forcing someone to provide dentistry.
(3) Therefore, it must be that trading sex as a commodity if not morally equivalent to trading dentistry as a commodity.
This seemed like a really simple modus tollens to me, but maybe I explained it really badly. You seem to have thought I meant exactly the opposite of what I did mean.
But it WOULD be morally awful to "force" someone to provide dentistry or any other service violently or using another form of compulsion that did not respect their human rights and consent. That would be slavery, and it would be just as much a violation of their human rights as forcing them to have sex against their will.
I don't think the difference is that sex is a fundamentally different "commodity" to dentistry, I think the difference is that dentistry is a highly skilled and high-status profession so the idea of someone being "forced" to do it is absurd rather than realistic. Pick a type of labour that people ARE forced to do against their will in conditions equivalent to slavery. Do you think it is worse to force someone to have sex than to force them to do domestic work, or heavy intimate care work? Do you think it is worse to force someone to have sex than to force them to do farm work? I don't! I think those are just as abusive and as much of a breach of someone's fundamental human rights as forcing them to have sex would be!
Sure, there are people who would "prefer" to do domestic labour under conditions of extreme disprivilege than have sex for money, but equally, there are other people who would be prefer to have sex for money under conditions of extreme disprivilege rather than do domestic labour (mollidesidevadasi.blogspot.co.uk writes incredibly powerfully about this.) But if someone is being forced into either, by definition, their preference is not being respected.
The fundamental difference should be whether people are able to exercise whatever limited agency is open to them in a society that doesn't guarantee basic their basic needs will be met and work safely and free from violence, not between sex and other types of labour.
//Do you think it is worse to force someone to have sex than to force them to do domestic work, or heavy intimate care work? Do you think it is worse to force someone to have sex than to force them to do farm work?//
Yes, I do.
Okay, but even there, "forcing someone to perform dentistry" is not the same as "not paying your dentist." When you say "forcing someone to perform dentistry," I do think of something that I would consider a serious crime and moral violation, not the same as rape but, in terms of level of seriousness, not wildly far off — like, you are kidnapping some poor dentist and holding them at gunpoint until they fix your cavities. That's a very different thing than "not paying your dentist," which suggests scheduling a regular appointment, getting your dental work done under regular circumstances, and then slipping out the office door before they collect payment. The point Mary is making is that these are very different situations if you're a dentist, and the analogous situations for sex workers — "forcing someone to provide sex," i.e. rape, and "having consensual sex with a sex worker and then refusing to pay the agreed-upon price" — are also very different, and your original comment conflated them by treating "not paying your dentist" as analogous to "forcing someone to provide sex."
Okay, I guess I did explain the analogy a lot less clearly than I thought. Thank you for pointing out how! I definitely think it would be very wrong to force someone to fix your teeth, but less wrong than forcing someone to have sex with you. To extend the analogy, it's a lot more wrong to get someone really drunk so they'll have sex with you (which is a kind of rape) than it is to get someone so drunk they'll work on your teeth (which is a terrible idea as far as your teeth are concerned, but ignore that part).
Your whole argument rests on the assumption of a transitive property of morally equivalency.
Trading sex as a service (not commodity) can be morally equivalent to trading other services, without necessitating that violating the terms of that trade is morally equivalent to violating the terms of other service exchanges.
For example, having one's massage therapist show up drunk to an appointment and do a horrible job is not morally equivalent to having one's heart surgeon show up drunk to an open heart surgery and botch it. Both are the same category of transgression of contract, but the massage therapist isn't going to be charged with negligent homicide or manslaughter. Because there is a different moral dimension — namely the consequences of the violation of trust.
We already have a legal framework that recognizes these moral distinctions.
Your model fails to take into account the consequences for the sex workers which is why it is leading you to these conclusions.
Thank you for this response! You're right, men are basically like "gimme gimme gimme," and I see from your response how prostitution in a way legitimizes that.
Why *is* rape worse than robbery or not paying your dentist? Bodily integrity is the main thing that comes to mind. It's so complex.
It seems obvious to me *that* rape is worse than robbery (which it doesn't sound like you're contesting), even when the physical injuries inflicted by the robber are worse. I'd say it's so because rape violates a person's sexual (and therefore also emotional and psychological) intimacy as well as their physical integrity.
I don't think it's confused; I think it's a disagreement about what sex is and what it's for.
Obviously there is a fundamental disagreement about what sex is and what it's for–I agree with you there. But I also think the author misunderstands most people's opposition to prostitution.
To be honest, most of the opposition to prostitution I've seen is wildly different from where you're coming from, too. Also, you definitely don't seem to grok the position of sex workers who WANT to do it, which you may want to read up on because some of what you say comes across as very dehumanizing and infantilizing of sex workers.
I'm happy to accept that I've spoken more generally than I should have. However, I've never come across anyone who was opposed to prostitution on the grounds that sex isn't worth paying for, and should be handed to men gratis as a reward for having mismatched chromosomes or hunting the mammoth or whatever. If you have I'd be very interested to hear/read it.
To your second point, there are lots of things that people want to do that I think they shouldn't, and I really don't see why that should be infantilizing. There are plenty of other things that smart, free, grown-up women do that I think are demeaning to them and to other women, like designing sexually objectifying game/TV/comic characters, or slut-shaming, or sacrificing friendship to compete for male attention. Humans are messed up, man.
The difference is that your views on women's slut-shaming other women don't make those women's lives more dangerous. Nobody is enacting legislation which criminalises women who shout-shame. But the "sex-work is so much worse than other types of work" view motivates laws like the Swedish model, which is used to make women in sex-work homeless, and to deport them, and puts them at greater risk of violence. If you oppose the decriminalisation of sex-work because you think it's not nice, you're putting women's lives in danger.
"sex isn't worth paying for, and should be handed to men gratis as a reward for having mismatched chromosomes or hunting the mammoth or whatever. If you have I'd be very interested to hear/read it."
How on earth have you managed to miss the entire Men's Rights/Red Pill/pickup artist movement? That's basically their philosophy in a nutshell. Women should sleep with them because they are Men; accept a guy buying you a drink and you've entered into an iron-clad contract to at least blow him.
I can't speak for Jess, but I don't think what she's trying to say is that opposition to prostitution = women should give it away for free. I think her point is that whether you're saying sex/sex work is too "worthless" to be considered work or too "priceless" to be considered work, the end result is the same – you are saying women should not be paid for sex, period. And this is the same rhetoric that is used to say women should not be paid for the physical or emotional labor they do, outside of what the broader capitalist, patriarchal culture defines as work (whether it's housework or emotional caretaking). This labor is categorized either as priceless (i.e., it is something women are naturally better at and innately suited to do, too sacred to be reduced to a monetary transaction!) or worthless (i.e. it's just expected that women do it, it's their duty, housework is unpaid or underpaid because it doesn't take much skill or effort, etc.). And no matter what you believe about sex being something priceless and personal (which many others also believe to be true of housework and the emotional caretaking women do for men), the fact of the matter is that there is a market for sex work, just as there is a market for domestic work (housecleaning, dogsitting, babysitting, etc.), and sex workers should no more be "devalued" for engaging in it than a housecleaner should be "devalued" for their profession. I also have a real problem with anyone saying that sex work devalues sex and the women selling it without also saying that men who buy it are similarly devalued. I feel that sex is personal and priceless as well, but I recognize that not everyone is going to share that view, and I don't think they – especially the mostly female sex workers who are in a very real sense the most vulnerable ones involved in the transaction and the ones most often the target of the opposition to sex work – should be punished or seen as devalued or lesser because they don't.
I am "saying women should not be paid for sex, period," but I think it's an important difference is that I think the sex currently being paid for shouldn't be happening at all (and probably wouldn't be if there weren't a cash market, or not in the same way), but housework should happen though.
"I also have a real problem with anyone saying that sex work devalues sex and the women selling it without also saying that men who buy it are similarly devalued. I feel that sex is personal and priceless as well, but I recognize that not everyone is going to share that view, and I don't think they – especially the mostly female sex workers who are in a very real sense the most vulnerable ones involved in the transaction and the ones most often the target of the opposition to sex work – should be punished or seen as devalued or lesser because they don't."
Yes, I agree with this. What I meant by women being devalued by prostitution, though, is that I think buying sex from a woman, mostly because it's basically renting a woman, is *in and of itself* treating her as less valuable (in a human-dignity sense, not in a commercial sense) than she is. Definitely prostituted women are the most vulnerable ones here, and I think opposition to prostitution needs to focus more on helping them out. If anyone gets punished it should be pimps first, and then johns.
I find the idea that paying a woman for sex constitutes “renting a woman” a lot more offensive to women than the concept of sex work.
I think that sounded more aggressive than I wanted! I do not think you are a monster. I just strongly feel that sex work is a job and that buying sex is buying/renting a SERVICE and not a PERSON.
Thank you for this! I did feel very piled-on, so this helps. Okay, here's what I meant: I do think that sex is more personal than other "services." I think sex should be loving and self-giving. (I also think sex should be reserved to marriage, but I'm aware that I'm likely to be ridden out of the Toast on a rail for saying so.)
So, starting from the idea that sex is much more closely tied to the person having it than dentistry or babysitting or engineering are to the person doing those, paying for sex looks a lot like paying for a person for a specified amount of time–i.e. treating a woman like a rentable object. I think the idea of renting people is creepy and abhorrent and offensive.
There's an important sense in which people *cannot* be bought or sold or rented, so in that sense hiring a prostituted woman *is not* renting her. But history shows that humans often treat each other as though we are commodities/objects. That's what I meant.
I definitely think we just disagree about sex, which is fine! I do not think anyone is going to ride you out on a rail for thinking marriage is where people should be having sex, even if they do not agree with you.
Thank you!
Can you explain why?
I think it actually echoes the idea that losing one’s virginity stains one, or that the loss of purity is something that changes one as a person. I think that sex is an act, it is not possessing someone. Johns are purchasing a service, and not a person. I also do not think johns who have sex with consenting women in exchange for money are doing anything wrong. Out of all the billion motivations a woman (or man) might have for choosing to have sex, I think “because I’m being compensated for it” is a weird reason to single out for special scorn.
I'd be interested in a really good dialogue/panel on the issue of legalized sex work*, were the Toast to put such a thing together. My own feelings are complicated, because (like all forms of communication) sex is two-sided, and it's completely possible for a sex worker to think of him/herself as selling a service and routinely interact with johns who think of themselves as (temporarily) purchasing a person or even a relationship, and (because play frames leak) carry their expectations about the fundamentally commercial nature of male-female relationships out into the world.
*come to think of it, I would also accept a really good article on the destigmatized-but-secretly-still-totally-stigmatized nature of sex work in Joss Whedon's Firefly
Most sex-worker-led organisations support decriminalisation, not legalisation. Legalisation means regulation and oversight, which in a stigmatised industry can be as abusive to sex-workers as criminalisation (eg. forced sexual health checks.) Decriminalisation means getting rid of all of the aspects of criminalisation which make sex-work more dangerous (advertising, working in pairs or groups, soliciting, using property for "immoral purposes" etc.)
(If you want to read more about the distinction, I super recommend Glasgow Sex Worker's blog, TitsandSass, Wendy Lyon and Nine at FeministIre, Charlotte Shane and that's all I can think of off the top of my head (don't want to search for others on my work computer!) but they will link to lots of other excellent people.
"it's completely possible for a sex worker to think of him/herself as selling a service and routinely interact with johns who think of themselves as (temporarily) purchasing a person or even a relationship"
I fired a john who started to talk about 'us' as a relationship rather than a transaction. It's definitely something to keep on top of.
Not Nicole, but I also find that concept repulsive, since it pretty much equates 'woman' with 'sex'. As in, "well, what else would you need a woman for, if not for sex?"
No one says they're 'renting a woman' when they go to a female hairdresser, or masseuse, or dentist. So the unspoken assumption is that if you need 'a woman', without any qualifiers, it's for sex. Thus, woman=sex.
Well, I think the same applies to prostituted men. But since most prostitutes are women, and since the original article was about women, that's what I was focusing on. I do consider sex more personal than just about any other human activity, which is why I wouldn't apply the same analogy to e.g. dentistry.
I agree with Nicole, because to me, "renting a woman" sounds like slavery, like you can do whatever you want with her while you have her. That is not what sex work is about. As others said, it's more like any 9 to 5 job with a defined scope of work. The way it's supposed to work is that the sex workers set the boundaries (even if they specialize in pretending they're giving up control, there still ought to be safe words and such).
Of course there are abuses, just like there were many abuses in workplaces before we had child labor laws and unions. That's why it's important to legalize sex work and bring it into the open.
Incidentally, I'm not a big fan of sex work myself, but the reason I don't oppose it entirely is because I'm a big believer in treating women like adults. Yes, again, there is trafficking and lots of women taken advantage of, beaten down to believe they have no other options, but that's not a universal truth, and I can't speak for everyone. So as I'm not an activist but speaking from a distance, I say respect women's choices and do them the courtesy of treating them like adults who can make their own choices. (Again, I'm not speaking of trafficked workers.)
// "renting a woman" sounds like slavery, like you can do whatever you want with her while you have her //
One of the sex-work activitists I follow on Twitter linked to research that showed that anti-sex-work campaigners and abusive clients shared this point of view. :-(
Sex-worker-led organisations tend to support decriminalisation rather than legalisation, though. Legalisation usually means regulation, which in a stigmatised industry can be just as dangerous for workers as criminalisation.
// to me, "renting a woman" sounds like slavery, like you can do whatever you want with her while you have her. //
Sorry, I was unclear and then I left to go to karate class. I don't think that hiring a prostitute *is* renting a woman (in a very very important sense, humans *cannot* be bought or sold or traded or rented), but that prostitution treats women like rentable objects, which is why so many people think prostitutes "can't get raped." I think it's bad to create a system in which people are treated like objects. Maybe some day everyone will think of sex as a service just like any other, and that particular problem with prostitution (I think there are lots) will go away. But I doubt it, and I don't think we *should* treat sex like any other service.
How is it any more undignified than renting any person's labour whether that be in an office or a lumber yard? Sex work is not inherently more special or magical than any other piece of physical work that a person might sell just because it involves genitals. That's kind of the point of the article. Sex is work, emotional support is work, housework is work. Arbitrarily labelling them as special doesn't change the fact that they are still work, it just allows men to segregate them into a class of "labour we don't think we should have to pay for ".
But sex really is different, though? It's okay to require of someone (an employee, your spouse, your kid, etc) that they perform work or housework. It's absolutely not okay to require your employee, partner or kid to perform a sexual service. Being forced or required to have sex is far more damaging than being made to cook dinner or to be responsible for keeping the bathroom clean. I don't know if anyone has been able to prove exactly why, but it really seems to be that way.
But when an employee is required to do something, it's a transaction where they exchange their labour in return for money. Consent is a given. Forcing someone to work for free and against their will is slavery and arguably as damaging as rape. Forcing your partner to make dinner or do housework, presumably under threat of violence if we're using the rape analogy, could absolutely be as damaging as sexual assault. The idea that sexual assault is the worst thing that can happen to a person perpetuates a lot of stigma for victims and can make recovery more difficult. Agency and intimacy can be violated in many other ways. For many women sex isn't different to other work. I personally couldn't do it, but I don't apply my own subjective view of the value of sex onto others.
I'm not imposing my subjective view, though, I'm thinking about the statistics. To explain where I'm coming from: I'm not against sex work and I fully recognise that many people like and are unharmed by sex work, because there's a lot of people who obviously could have other jobs who actually choose working with sex. I read their blogs, I listen to them when they're in the news, and I have no reason to doubt them.
But, because I'm a huge nerd, this doesn't prove to me that sex work is exactly like other work, or that sex is like any other task (and it doesn't have to be! Sex work could be a great job for some people even if it weren't like other jobs). When I look at the research, I notice that being made to have sex actually does seem to be more damaging than many other things that can happen in life. Being bullied into sex doesn't seem to have the same consequences as being bullied into doing an unpleasant chore, the consequences look more like the consequences of violence. Even "just" being expected to have sex when you don't want to, even if you're not forced but just feel like you ought to, seems to be harmful to many people. It doesn't have to be like that for everyone for the pattern to hold (and I agree with you that society's stigma makes it even worse). I just can't ignore the pattern and I want to be honest about it. Sex seems to be different, not for everybody but for many people, and not only because of the cultural stigma even though a lot of it probably is the stigma.
Secondly, I'm not talking about the threat of violence, I'm talking about social pressure or economic need. I don't want to compare sex work to rape or slavery, I want to compare being told to perform a sex act to being told to clean your room or fix the office printer. I think sexual consent is important (why? I don't know, I just notice that it seems to be more important than other types of consent), so I would never pressure anyone in any way to do something sexual. But I might pressure my partner to do the dishes if it's her turn (I'm also female btw). Many people tell their kids that they aren't allowed to use the TV or computer until they've cleaned their room, and the kids get angry but are basically fine. Using the same threat to get even the tiniest bit of sexual performance would obviously be absolutely unacceptable. A boss might tell you to take out the trash even if it's not your job, or to be nice to an extremely rude customer even though that's degrading to you, but they can't ask you to make the customer happy by giving them a handjob. And so on.
So, basically, I want to compare apples to apples and I want to be sure that I'm really seeing every side. So right now I'd say that I believe that sexual consent is even more necessary than consent to most other activities, that this means that sex work is not like any other job but in fact is different, that many people are absolutely miserable when they're expected to have sex they aren't desiring and that a whole bunch of people do fine in sex work.
This is such an interesting comment. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
"Sex" can be lots and lots of things, but it's often fundamentally considered as an act that leads to the creation of a new life. Thus raping someone creates a greater psychic harm than stealing their wallet does? Because there's the potential of a new life in there, a new spirit. And even with other kinds of sex, they're still our "Reproductive Organs" even if they're not being used that way. Maybe this explains why you've noticed that sexual violence seems to be more lasting.
But stealing someone's wallet is a property crime, not a violent crime.
Rape is not "worse" than stealing someone's wallet because of the possibility of creation of new life. It is worse because it is a violent crime that denies someone's right to bodily autonomy, choice and consent. And that is true regardless of the genders involved and whether or not the victim can get pregnant.
Paying someone for consensual sex is not violating their consent in the same way.
I understand what you're saying and I'm sorry if I misunderstood your previous comment. It is a thorny issue, but I personally believe that there is no inherant importance to the physical act, only the social meaning we impose on it. It is a profession that is unavoidably coloured by our subjective views in a way that other jobs aren't, not necessarily because of what it is but because of normative expectations surrounding sex itself. We have thousands of years of ingrained ideas about sex formed by patriarchal notions of property, paternity and religion which I think go largely unexamined and are assumed to be "just how things are". I want to challenge the idea that sex is different to other work because I think we would all be mentally healthier for it. I think we're in agreement about how this very subjectivity means it will be fine for some people and not fine for others. I guess where we diverge is in our understanding of the function of sex. If you pressure your partner to wash the dishes or your kids to clean their rooms, it's in an effort to maintain a clean, hygienic home, which is a benefit to everyone living there. If you pressure your partner for sex, it's inherantly selfish because you're simply after your own pleasure. Sex is different only in that its purpose is hedonistic. If we take procreation off the table, it doesn't really have a practical purpose the way that emptying trash or cleaning up does.
//Sex is different only in that its purpose is hedonistic. If we take procreation off the table, it doesn't really have a practical purpose the way that emptying trash or cleaning up does.//
I think having sex that's purely hedonistic (even mutally and consensually hedonistic) is a misuse (as it were–I can't think of a better phrasing) of the sexual act, which should be unitive and express self-sacrificial love.
//I guess where we diverge is in our understanding of the function of sex.//
YUP.
Wow, seriously? Sex for pleasure that doesn't involve love is a "misuse" of sex? Yeah, I would guess we disagree on a lot more than the function of sex then.
Wow, so the actual lives, safety and health of sex-workers is of less importance to you than preserving your idea of the sacredness of sex? That's quite the admission.
Sex is NOT different. It is unacceptable – or should be – to *require* your employee to do something which is physically, morally or spiritually damaging to them, whether that's having sex or selling alcohol or killing animals or carrying things in a way which might exacerbate muskulo-skeletal damage or putting up with harassment from customers with no support or going somewhere where people are going to shoot at you or you might be required to shoot at them. But some people do not find these individual things damaging, and contract to do them for money.
Sex workers make individual contracts to perform sexual services for money. The idea that they are *required* to do whatever the client wants – that as soon as the contract is formed, the sex-worker loses all control – is shared by anti-sex-work activists and clients who are also rapists. A client has no more right to *require* a sex-worker to perform a sexual service against their consent than my boss has to require me to do something outside my contract. I'm better protected than a sex worker, but that's because my job is not criminalised, not because "sex is different".
Saying sex is different is what makes sex work stigmatised, and sex worker activists are pretty clear that stigma is the #1 thing that makes sex work higher risk than many other kinds of employment. Sex might be different FOR YOU, but by claiming it's different for everyone you are reinforcing the dynamic that makes sex work dangerous.
Exactly this. Sex is a service. I hate the tired old cliché that sex is 'selling one's body.' No, it's selling a service that one performs with one's body – like any other manual labor. Not everyone enjoys it, but some do. I did, and my clients were happy with the service, stuck to the pre-arranged conditions, and were repeat customers who paid well. Ideally, prostitution should be legal and protected, so that prostitution is done safely and legally by those who like it/don't mind it.
If sex isn't different, why are you comparing being coerced to have sex to being coerced to act against your convictions or being physically harmed? Why is it worse to be made to have sex with someone you don't want to have sex with than to be made to clean a bathroom you don't want to clean?
When I say that sex seems to be different, this is what I mean – it often does seem to be more morally or spiritually damaging to be nagged, bullied, forced by economic need, expected or guilttripped into sex than into cleaning toilets.
The client doesn't have the right to do what they want, for this exact reason. It's much, much uglier to try to "get" more sex from a sex work deal than to try to get more money out of a business deal. Consent is more important. Your boss can actually assign you a new duty and expect you to put up with it or lose your job, but not if the duty is a sex act. And if they do so anyway, it's considered a crime on a different level than a breach of contract. Which is good, because sex is different.
I don't think sexual violations are UNIQUE, but sexual integrity seems to be up there with bodily integrity (which of course goes together with sex) and moral integrity, at least to me. And it seems like you also think so? But most work duties and housework chores don't impact your physical or moral integrity, which makes sex work different from other work.
I mean, let's take the most extreme example I can think of – war. Some people choose to be soldiers in combat, knowing that they will kill, and even though many of them are harmed by killing, a lot of people are fine. But forcing a person to kill would be a huge, huge, HUGE violation. If we can handle this contradiction in soldiers (that combat is different from other jobs and can be psychologically damaging, especially if forced, but that many people choose it voluntarily without being harmed or disturbed), we can definitely handle it with sex work.
OK, the comment thread I was responding to was Monica saying they don't think anyone should be allowed to purchase sexual services because "sex-work is different", Apollonia said that sex-work is not so different that it shouldn't be possible to purchase sexual services, and you said that it is different. So I assumed that you were agreeing that sex work is so different from other types of work that people shouldn't be allowed to purchase sex. If that's not what you mean, and you support decriminalisation, then yes, we agree!
You said you weren't talking about rape in your other comment but I think you seem to have an idea that rape must be violent. Coercion to have sex or coercion to clean a bathroom are by definition, actions undertaken due to threat or force. It could be threat of violence, emotional or verbal abuse, social or financial isolation,but it's still a threat. And if you ARE using threats whether implicit or explicit, to get someone to clean a bathroom then I maintain that is absolutely as psychologically damaging as raping someone. Sex under coercion is rape, make no mistake. There is no real difference between nagging someone to have sex or nagging someone to do the dishes. The consequences for non -compliance is what's important.
I take issue with the assumption that sex for money out of economic necessity is automatically more damaging than cleaning toilets out of economic necessity. That's not at all an objective truth. There are a lot of soul destroying jobs that don't require you to be naked.
"I think buying sex from a woman, mostly because it's basically renting a woman, is *in and of itself* treating her as less valuable… than she is"
As a sex worker, screw you. I am not "being rented". *I* willingly, and consensually rent *my services* to other people. People no more 'rent' me, than they 'rent' a graphic designer, or a caterer.
You've got some seriously fucked up (though common) ideas about sex work, and you don't get to speak about what *my* experience is. You don't get to speak for sex workers. Seriously, do your fucking research before you open your mouth.
I oppose prostitution and I absolutely do not believe that it devalues women (or men who sell sexual activities.) I think it is pro-prostitution men who most commonly believe that and it's one of the reasons they like the institution as much as they do.
I do believe, and think it is self-evident, that men who buy sexual activities devalue themselves to a level of moral squalor from which they cannot recover or be recovered. Not to say that it must necessarily do this always and in the future, but just that it is clearly observable that it has and it does.
So while I respect your right to make your own argument I would urge you not to pull in other anti-prostitution people in support as though we all share this rationale, we don't and I find it pretty paternalistic and offensive.
I certainly respect your right to feel this way, but I do not think it is at all self-evident that men who pay for sex have devalued themselves to a level of moral squalor from which they cannot recover or be recovered. I think that RAPISTS have, but a guy who pays for sex from a professional has not, in my mind, actually done anything intrisically wrong. There are circumstances under which paying for sex (questionable autonomy on the sex worker\’s part, etc.) is solidly morally wrong, in my opinion, but oh, man, just paying a woman an agreed-upon amount for a sexual act just does not seem wrong to me, and also I hate the idea of lumping in a fair number of people with disabilities who opt to pay for professional sex services for a variety of reasons with irredeemable sleazebags.
My best client was a lovely fellow who had just come off of a bad relationship. He wanted sex, as it's something rather fun and important in life, but didn't want a 'rebound' relationship. We had great sex for several months while he got over it all, then he went out and started dating again. I like to think I facilitated that, and it was quite pleasing to me.
I think the disabled people argument is creepy and patronizing, myself.
I am thinking of this in particular: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119495/sex-wor…
Many many people with disabilities have totally kickin’ sex lives with their partners, but there are definitely people with disabilities who find emotional and physical satisfaction from sex workers in a way I think is really liberating and great, even if, as they say, it can’t fix many of the issues they hired sex workers for in the first place.
I mean, I don't think it's okay to buy and sell sex, so I don't think it's okay for people with disabilities to buy sex. In fact, I think buying sex is inherently sleazy, but I don't think anyone is irredeemable.
I'm not sure I was being totally clear–when I said that prostitution devalues women, I didn't mean it actually alters their ontological status. I meant that prostitution treats women as less valuable than they are "and it's one of the reasons [pro-prostitution men] like the institution as much as they do." Therefore, let's get rid of the institution.
I never meant to imply that I speak for all people who oppose prostitution. I think I said "most opposition to prostitution that I've seen," but I'm sorry I hurt you.
//I do believe, and think it is self-evident, that men who buy sexual activities devalue themselves to a level of moral squalor from which they cannot recover or be recovered.//
I agree with this up to the last part (I'm Catholic so I don't think any living soul is irredeemable, ever).
It's interesting that you compare it to babysitting, something that is also, when done voluntarily, often an expression of a deep emotional bond with the other participant(s), involves a great deal of trust, admission to someone's household, and is frequently seen as something women should do for the love of it and as part of the natural order of things, rather than for compensation.
I think babysitting for friends or family can certainly work that way, but I have done a lot of babysitting/nannying/childcare and always found it funny how much of the job is emotionally scaffolding the mothers. I used to figure 15 minutes, before or after (so not within the time period I was technically being paid) of chatting with mothers, making encouraging noises about their children's progress relative to other children I knew, and assuaging their guilt for leaving their children for two hours to go to the gym.
…..This is making me think that the comparison to sex work is even more apt.
It may have been said elsewhere, but I also think elder care goes in that box as well.
But plenty of the people who think that sex work demeans women still think that non-sex-working women should "put out" regardless, either because they are married or because the dude is being nice to them.
I don't think you can find any group of people that doesn't include at least some people who "think that non-sex-working women should "put out" regardless, either because they are married or because the dude is being nice to them."
I think the foundation of this discussion is what kind of thing you think sex *is*. If it's just a physical activity like chewing or typing on a keyboard then, well, I don't see much reason to be against it.
Some people (not all!) who oppose prostitution think of sex as an activity that is full of meaning. The potential creation of another human being is kind of a terrifying amount of power. So in this view, "buying" sex is horrifying–this kind of special, activity that should be guarded and private exposed in the marketplace. It's the same horror that you see when there's a particularly grimy example of marketing to small children, for example. There are some places capitalism should not go. It's also key that to people who believe this, all sex is like this-there is typically not an allowance for casual sex. Of course there are people who oppose prostitution for completely other reasons as well.
To people who are not against prostitution there is often nothing special or set apart about sex–it's just a physical activity. These people might even acknowledge that meaning in sex is created when it's between two people who trust/love/lust for/admire/like each other.
The difference is whether meaning is inherent to the act or whether its meaning is created.
But I sell art…that seems like a better metaphor to me than typing. I think it is possible that sex as a commodity can also be a shared act of creative meaning, or pleasurable fun. I do not believe that is how prostitution commonly works, but I can see how it could be.
Yes. Thank you.
I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around pretty much everything you said. But as someone who has done a lot of emotional and physical caretaking, unpaid and as a woman who has sex I have a PRETTY BIG ISSUE with your assertion that sex is "so personal" that selling it is inherently devaluing.
You know what I found to be far more personal than every sex act I've ever participated in? Caring for my grandfather.
I spent the summer of 1999 living with him, helping him bathe, helping him use the toilet, helping him dress. Along with all the "worthless" work: cooking, cleaning, laundry, etc. I did all of that unpaid. It was immensely intimate labor, which I did for free, out of love and filial obligation.
Had I been in school we would have hired someone to help care for him. So make no mistake, it was absolutely work and it is absolutely the sort to thing we pay (mostly) women to do every day. It's hard work, physical injuries are common, the emotional toll is immense, the pay is lousy, and many care providers report being subjected to threats, violence, and emotional abuse by patients or their families.
By your standards, we should outlaw these jobs. They're too important, too intimate, and too dangerous now as a legal and nominally regulated industry.
I don't know how many other Toasties have provided that kind of care either as a job or unpaid, but I would be very surprised if anyone who has done it doesn't find it "so personal" and "important" work.
I don't think we should outlaw caretaking jobs. It's always been fairly obvious to me that sex is different from other things, even personal physical things like caretaking. But I don't know how to explain why–especially to strangers, when I don't know what sort of first principles you're reasoning from, and most especially given the widespread acceptance of casual impersonal sex. I think it's all part of a larger problem in our culture (actually, a lot of larger problems. Our culture has so many problems I can't even).
So how are you proposing we address the dangers and emotional toll that caretaking has for providers? Why would those protections not be adequate for sex work?
Sex isn't magic, it isn't a covenant between you and your partner(s) whatever god(s). It's a way human beings interact and there are as many reasons for people to enthusiastically agree to participate in sex as there are ways to have sex.
If, for you, sex is so unique and personal and intimate that you could never do it as a job, that's fine. Don't.
There is no way I could provide care for elderly or disabled people for a living because I find it too personal and intimate. For my own emotional well being I will only provide that care and support to friends and family, and I find that immensely fulfilling and meaningful. That doesn't mean I get to make that judgement for everyone else. Especially when there is ample evidence to support the statement that criminalizing providers of services puts them at greater risk of harm than providing them legal protections to operate.
//So how are you proposing we address the dangers and emotional toll that caretaking has for providers?//
I don't know. I do think it's a serious problem, but I don't know how to solve it. I do believe that elderly people need care in a way that nobody needs sex.
//Why would those protections not be adequate for sex work? Sex isn't magic, it isn't a covenant between you and your partner(s) whatever god(s). It's a way human beings interact and there are as many reasons for people to enthusiastically agree to participate in sex as there are ways to have sex. //
I've already said that I think sex is different from other things, even personal things like caretaking. I don't think either of us is able to explain our position further; I've stated mine and you've stated yours, and it hasn't gone anywhere. I think I understand you better than when this discussion started, but I might be wrong. In any case, thank you for talking to me! I don't think you understand what I'm saying, but again, I could be wrong. You're starting to sound very aggressive to me, and implying that I said things I didn't. Even if you don't intend this, I know it will influence how I respond to you, viz. in the direction of less charitable. So I'm going to excuse myself from this strand of the discussion.
My point is that regardless of what you think sex work does to people emotionally or spiritually, that making it illegal has the added problems of making it more damaging and more dangerous.
Another perspective: there will always be women who decide to give birth at home rather than in a hospital or birthing center, those women have made a choice that increases their chance of a bad outcome for themselves and their baby. It is illegal in some places, and in those places the likelihood of a bad outcome is even higher than in places where that choice is supported.
Why is that?
It's because no one is 100% capable of perfect risk assessment. And so in places where there is potential for jail or fines or the loss of custody for someone having their child at home, they are more likely to avoid seeking aid until it's too late. In places where those punitive outcomes don't exist, people are more likely to seek help when they need it and before they are beyond it.
Sex work is the same. You can say no one needs sex, but no society has ever eliminated sex work. So, in order to mitigate the potential harms of sex work, we should, as a society, support and protect sex workers in their work to minimize the harm done to them in the course of that work.
//there will always be women who decide to give birth at home rather than in a hospital or birthing centre, those women have made a choice which increases the risk of a bad outcome//
(You say that as if the increased risk is a necessary aspect of giving birth at home, which isn't the case: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-an… It's not that the risk is amplified by a healthcare system which prohibits home births, it's purely a factor of a healthcare system that doesn't support home births.
Which possibly makes it an even more apt analogy for sex-work!)
This doesn't go directly to the center of your discussion here in this subsection, I don't think … but I think it very much goes to the center of the larger discussion, so I'll just leave it here.
I think that, in part, you are misunderstanding an aspect of the article. Housework, emotional support, and sex are not either worthless or invaluable, but they are ALL a type of labor that is 'expected' of women. As such, there should be no compensation. The ruse to say that one or the other of those is "worthless" or "priceless" is just another way of saying that, because it is expected for women to provide it, we can't be bothered to put a price to it.
Here's where there is a huge presumption in your thinking: "swx is so personal it should not be sold".
To you, maybe, sex is personal. I won't even go into the cultural reasons why sexuality has been presented to women as a "seperate and more sacred" realm of himan endeavor. Suffice it to say that there are cultures who would be shocked that you'd pay a stranger to baby sit your kids, but which would have not trouble seeing you have cacual, meaningless sex with a stranger.
Let's just say you are universalizing your values and leave it at that.
But I have spent a lot of time talking to prostitutes and many of them find working for starvation wages to be be even more demeaning and "personally degrading" than selling sex. As one of them put it to me:
"I work thursdays through Saturdays selling sex while my husband takes care of our daughter. The rest of the week, I spend all my time with my daughter. Now why would I want to make half the money, working twice as much? And how is this somehow better for me and my family? What I need isn't a minimum wage job and 'self esteem'. What I need is police protection and respect for me as a citizen by the population at large. My problem isn't selling sex: it is that people think I deserve to be beaten or killed for doing that."
Personally, I think your views on prostitution are fairly confused, given the mixed metaphors you make. It also chills me that you think you seem to thunk that you know what is better for sex working women than they themselves.
As long as we are talking about women and work, Laura Augstin has a series of iteresting articles about how "rescue work" and social work became feminized ways of allowing "respectable" women to gain a salary controlling their non-respectsble sisters.
*makes wordless noises of agreement and delight*
I'm a middle manager in a design field that is overwhelmingly male (91% at the last survey I saw), I'd say at least 50% of my actual job is emotionally placating men. YOU TOO CAN BE PAID FOR IT
Yes you can:
http://qz.com/396114/alibaba-actually-posted-this…
I had this sort of problem with a friend (female, actually) and I knew I'd hit my limit when I found myself thinking, "Hon, if you want me to be your therapist I want $100 an hour."
I sympathize. I had a friend like this and eventually realized we weren't bartering emotional support, she was just taking it from me and giving nothing back.
Friendship can become free therapy with a surprising quickness, I think, when women are conditioned to think their emotional support is a given and not a valuable commodity. Or that emotional support in general is just automatic in any relationship. I know a handful of women who just don't think emotional support is valuable, even though they'd collapse entirely if everyone providing emotional support to them disappeared.
Yes, yes, yes. What did me in wasn't so much the problem of how much I was giving her, but that she refused to acknowledge how much she was asking–which made me feel like a monster for how much it cost me.
I know this feel. I confronted her about it and she didn't understand why it would be hard for me. She just "wanted me to listen." But she didn't want me to listen. She wanted me to confirm that she was right and that she was completely not at fault for any of the bad stuff in her life, and trying to be that person is exhausting and also makes ME feel like a bad person, because I'm confirming stuff I don't believe.
Example: she'd be viciously verbally abusive of her husband for weeks on end and then come to me complaining that it just didn't seem like he was in love with her anymore. "He doesn't look at me like he used to." Saying something like "that must be hard" would result in a direct question about whether I thought he should do this or that – which I can't answer honestly without putting a huge amount of effort into figuring out a way to present the information constructively.
Professionals know how to do it. That's why we pay them good money to do it; it's a difficult skill. But friends can't provide that service for you anytime you want. We can listen, but we can't help you figure out what's wrong or confirm your rightness or any of that. It's too much work.
I practiced (in the mirror, like they tell you in grade-school public speaking) how to say, "I'm sorry you feel that way but I can't do anything about it." And then I stopped returning texts.
THIS. I put myself in a terrible position in college by always being there with a sympathetic shoulder for a friend who systematically alienated all of our other friends by being thoughtless and not bothering to consider other positions beside her own as valid. I was the only one willing to live with her by senior year, but I was never willing to say, "Look, I can see why all of these people are excluding you." I still don't have the nerve.
So much yes. I literally moved out of state to try and escape a friend who would become emotionally traumatized if anyone disagreed with her perception of reality.
Are. You. ME???
In the end it was quite easy to stop being friends with her. I just stopped putting in all that extra effort, and she got upset and stopped contacting me. I saw her a year later by chance, after a year of feeling guilty and sad about that friendship. As I walked away from her after that chance meeting, I thought 'I am SO GLAD she's not in my life anymore'.
And that was when I realised I have a messed up understanding of how relationships work, stemming from growing up with an emotionally abusive mother who expected us all to be in emotional servitude to her. So, yup, that's great. (I'm working on it)
Something about my personality makes me attract that kind of emotional vampire. People who want me to be their cheerleader and source of support and shoulder to cry on, but who aren't willing to give any of that back. And the problem is I'm good at it! I work in mental health and am going to go to grad school for a degree in counseling! I'm genuinely happy to listen to people talk about themselves for hours on end, and to try and help them feel better. But it takes me so long to realize that I'm not getting anything out of the relationship, and by that point I feel like it's too late to escape their clutches.
I leveled-up in life when I learned to say, to friends both male and female, "I can no longer help you with this. You need to find a therapist. If you do, I will talk to you about X again, but not until then. I am worn out." The hard part is sticking to it, but dammit if it isn't a useful skill.
I did this and lost the friend. Which means she wasn't a good friend, I know, but man, some people really don't seem to understand why you can't keep throwing your emotional support into a bottomless pit forever.
I had to do this with my mother about a year ago, when she married her current husband about 6 months after meeting him (although our families go back several years through school/church connections) even though I warned her it was too fast … and then surprise, surprise, he was quite different after the wedding – weirdly possessive, stopped going to dance lessons with her, etc. – and she reverted back to her standard "woe is me" pose and expected me to hold her hand and listen to all of it. And the kicker is that she stopped going to her therapist (whose true efficacy I sort of doubt, because she is a bit of a narcissist and I don't think she would go to someone regularly who ACTUALLY called her on her bullshit) pretty soon after she met her current husband, because she was just so happy to finally not be alone anymore that in her mind she is "cured."
At some point I just refused to continue being the sole repository of her complaints and sadness, and she is so angry at me about it – calls me selfish and cold, you know the drill – but I can't be bothered.
Thank you. This is exactly what I've been screwing up my courage to say to an emotionally needy ex-boyfriend (he broke up with me, but still comes to me with his angst. ???). Seeing it written out makes it sound more possible!
I don't know if you'll see this reply as I am so late to this fascinating party, but this happened to me when my husband and I split up (as it turned out, temporarily). In the first week after I'd left him he rang me. I told him: "I can't help you with your problems – I *am* your problem".
Obviously nowadays I would say something slightly different, acknowledging the fact that he was also his problem (he worked this out and we've been happy for years) but it was very effective. He had to go and find other support and it was, as he later told me, incredibly good for him.
I've ended up in this position too often with too many people (almost exclusively female, weirdly–although this is probably because I have significantly fewer male friends). It may not even be their fault, though. If people vent to me a lot, I end up thinking, "Well, I can't burden them with what I'm going through, my concerns are so petty compared to theirs! I'll just not say anything." And also, "I have so many friends who value me for being a support for them! They won't like me if they have to support me in return. I'll just not say anything."
I say the exact same things to myself – and like you it's been almost always with female friends – which does make it hard to parse the difference between "they're asking too much and not giving enough back" and "I'm not speaking up enough about my concerns and need for support." Which is just to say – I feel ya *sad fistbump*
*sad fistbump return* I realized a few months ago that I am no longer comfortable confiding in any of my female friends, and I've been trying to figure out how to fix that. Thankfully I do have two guys I can rely on for emotional support, but being guys, they don't quite get why it's so difficult for me to (a) disengage from always being a support for others and (b) approach other people for support in return.
I have recently deliberately been confiding in people, because a combination of being naturally reticent and having a whack view of how relationships work (see above) means that I often don't. It's part of why I have a lot of friendships with a large online component – because I have trouble being emotionally open when I can see people's reactions, because I feel like the price of being friends with someone is that I never make them feel uncomfortable in any way. To the point where I have asked my partner not to make eye contact with me when we are having tough emotional conversations, because if he does I start panicking that I am the worst person in the world because I'm making him sad (usually he's sad about the fact that he did something to make me sad I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS RATIONAL).
I am trying to remind myself that actually, the REAL price of having friendships is sharing that stuff that makes you vulnerable. That's much much harder in the moment but at least I don't then accidentally end up in relationships where someone is accidentally taking advantage of me without realising it.
And also part of it is reducing the amount of time I spent on relationships that aren't nourishing for me, leaving me actual emotional energy for those that ARE.
"I feel like the price of being friends with someone is that I never make them feel uncomfortable in any way"
THANK YOU for putting that into words.
EXACTLY. My life is actually pretty great compared to my friend's, and I spent a lot of time thinking that this meant I owed it to her to give her a pass on everything. I mentioned this to her, by way of trying to explain why I was so exhausted, and she told me that, while I couldn't be blamed for not knowing this since I had no such experience, that was the sort of thing you shouldn't say to "a traumatized person."
I'm a psychologist and people always say "Ooh are you secretly analysing me?" when they find out. I straight up tell them they couldn't afford me and I don't do my job for free.
I always think this is funny. Only a small part of the work of being a psychologist is knowing what's wrong with a person. Most of it is getting THEM to know what's wrong, and then coaxing them into coming up with their own ways of doing something about it.
I'm sure you do sometimes think "Oh, I see your problem" when talking to people, but that's not really the whole job, is it?
Absolutely. It's bloody hard work for the patient because a third party can't "fix" your mental health. It's where the mind /brain dichotomy comes into play. Even if I do perceive something to be problematic for someone during a casual conversation, if they're not my patient they won't thank me for pointing it out. Frankly, if I don't intend to provide a treatment plan or follow up, I don't see it as being constructive or ethical. It's like a doctor saying "you've got cancer" and leaving you to deal with it in your own.
I had the teeniest bit of male entitlement today where some guy just walked up to me as I was talking on the phone outside and said "business school." Would it be that difficult to make a complete sentence? Maybe in the form of a question, since you are requesting information from someone who is minding her own business and is not an on-call information service? So teeny, but the entitlement, even on such a micro-scale, irks me.
More relevant to this article, I really like the comparison of emotional labor to domestic labor and sex work, and it makes me want to learn more about economic and governmental systems and capitalism in general, and how we think of work (for wages) vs. labor (though the notion that the common denominator is that this is all 'women's work' meaning it has no monetary value is very true and very depressing).
That's where you hold your finger up in his face, finish your conversation and then respond "I don't know where that is"
This is excellent and I will employ this in the future.
Is that what he wanted? Directions? Wow, I've yet to run into someone too entitled to even make their petty desires clear to the stranger who was supposed to fulfil them.
I did actually once hold my finger in a man's face while I finished a phone call. He waited politely until I was done, so that he could explain that he didn't want to bother me but I was gorgeous. *eye-roll*
Please tell me your response to him was "Google."
I wish. My exact response was 'what?' Which made him actually use additional words, and I told him I didn't know, even though I probably could've figured it out.
I probably would have said the same thing. But we can dream.
Or channel your inner 8-year-old, and say "Hi, Business School!"
OMG next time. Next time that is happening.
My partner's standard response to that kind of sentence is to say "… is a noun phrase."
Beautiful.
The one I get all the time is 'am I in the right place?' IDK DUDE, I don't know what place you wanted to be but I'm gonna go with 'no' because this is NOT the fifth level of hell, so…..
Like everyone they run into is legit there to be their spirit guide or something. IDGI.
"OH yes, my child, I have been watching you all morning and I can tell you that yes, you are in the place you need to be"
This reminds me of the guy who came up to me the other day as I was talking on the phone and asked if I had a light (I said no, sorry), then repeated the question (I shrugged theatrically and said, louder, no light, nope), then asked if I was single. I just shook my head and he walked away, but I sort of regret not saying, loudly, "Excuse me, Mom, some dude is propositioning me, would you mind waiting to finish your sentence until I explain to him that I'm not interested?"
I had some guy ask me something while I actually had earbuds in, so I had to pause it, take them out and ask him what he said, and he asked me what I was listening to (which, it was talk radio, so it's not like he overheard a band he liked and wanted to strike up a conversation about it or something). I so badly wanted to communicate to him that hey, maybe I have them in so I won't be bothered by people who just want to get my attention. I can't remember what I actually said, but it definitely wasn't that. But OMG the entitlement. Like I'm literally just waiting, in suspension, for some dude to talk to me. Or the assumption that everyone will just want to take time out of their day to listen to you.
On the other end of the scale, I had a stranger turn around to me and say, "Where the FUCK'S the casino? – oh sorry luv, I thought you were a bloke."
That's how men start conversation's with each other? Well.
Wow. I had a male classmate who couldn't be bothered to look at his voter registration card when he could look up a website called "Where's My F***ing Polling Place?"
I think I would burst out laughing, honestly.
Was he Australian? Because to be fair, that's how Australian women talk to each other too.
Naah, purest Salford.
One of my coworkers does this, and one day I just snapped at him and asked "where are your verbs?!"
YAAASSSSS.
But can you come talk to me in this corner about balancing this with compassion? Background–I'm Christian, and I believe in love and compassion and selflessness, but I also believe in not-putting-up-with-patriarchal-bullshit. How do I show love for my fellow humans but also not let giant groups of dudebros occupy the entire sidewalk because jiminy christmas other people are walking here? Does that make sense? I don't think selflessness and fighting patriarchy are mutually exclusive, but sometimes I wonder how you balance them?
Compassion, in my opinion, should be reserved for our fellow humans who would benefit from it. Obliging the entitled and obtuse will of the entitled and noblesse does not shine on them a light of needed humanity. But if a man comes to you with a problem borne not of his own fevered pomposity, then offering him your compassionate advice and solace—should you so choose! and your choice is no small thing—is no affront to feminism nor surrender to the patriarchy.
I struggle with this too! My rule of thumb is for things like this is that other people cannot reasonably expect me to go much out of my way to spare them minor inconveniences (making space on the sidewalk, making their own coffee, etc.). For emotional support, I'm learning to take myself seriously when I feel used. I'm not sure how to keep it from getting to that point, though, and it's a lot harder to scale back than to not go too far.
this makes so much sense in the context of thinking of this stuff as work – we know people don't do quality work when they've been getting burned out & never taking a break. So if being a compassionate human being is your full-time job, you'll do much better work if you don't take a second-shift unpaid internship at the emotional firm of Manfeels, Broplacating, & Entitleddouche.
"second-shift unpaid internship at the emotional firm of Manfeels, Broplacating, & Entitleddouche"
I love you.
"it's a lot harder to scale back than to not go too far."
THIIIIIS. By the time I realize I'm in these one-sided relationships, it's too late to pull back without feeling like a bad person or like I'm abandoning a person for whom I used to be a source of support.
Teaching entitled asshats tough lessons about social reciprocity can be construed as a gift you're giving to them. And by extension, to the whole world.
Calling out douchey behavior IS an act of love and of compassion and selflessness, both for the offender (maybe he'll be more compassionate himself once you point out his awful behavior) and for other people that will be forced to interact with him. It's an act of compassion to scold him on his behavior so maybe other people won't get treated as poorly.
I struggle with this constantly, and I have no answer, but just wanted to say you're not alone!
My feeling on this is that it is not compassionate to someone to coddle them and their ego. The real world comes for all of us eventually, and they'll do better if they realize earlier through a more compassionate way that they are not a hothouse flower around which the rest of society will construct a greenhouse. Take the guy with the psychic in the example. Sure, it may have hurt him if women earlier in this life had pointed out his patriarchal behaviour, but then he'd probably be emotionally capable of gracefully bowing out when a woman made it clear she wasn't interested. Instead he got taken by a conwoman willing to feed that delusion. Those dudebros will be better off if they learn that they are not more important than everyone around them, rather than persisting in that delusion until something hits them hard. So you can chip away at that, in the meantime building a more supportive, functional society for everyone.
To use another analogy, it's not kind of compassionate to let your kid learn to run around like a terror screaming and hitting people, they do better if you firmly but kindly teach them proper behaviour
Yeah, I worked for a dude for a while who, while essentially a nice guy (non-ironically) was also a pompous blowhard.
Then he sold the business to someone else. He stayed around doing 'consultancy' for a while but wasn't anyone's boss so no one was obliged to listen to him with anything more than polite disinterest. I will never forget the fear in his eyes. Six months in he was a shell of a man. It would have been much more compassionate had he not reached the age of 80 without realising how to be a good friend.
I would have LOVED to watch that go down! I mean, as a rule I don't like to see people unhappy, but I work in an industry literally overflowing with pompous dudebros, and sometimes I just look at my coworkers (most of whom are Non-Ironic Nice Guys but generally oblivious and privileged) and wish they could sit at my desk for just one week and see how helpless and unacknowledged they feel.
Yeah I gotta say, about four years on now I'm starting to feel a bit sorry for him, but the first four years were pure, delightful, Schadenfreude.
Part of compassion for others is, in my opinion, giving them the gentle push they need to be better people. So compassion includes calling people out (in a gentle, loving way) on their patriarchal bullshit.
Christ threw the money changers out of the temple–they were behaving inappropriately for profane reasons in a sacred space. So follow his example, let context shape your responses to roaming dudebros. Easier said than done, I know.
Ooh, good analogy. I'm going to remember that one. To add to the list: like, every sinner Christ encountered and told to do better.
Honestly, this is 90% of my job as a bartender. It especially becomes interesting living in a country where I make my money off of tips. With men who come to the bar to "hire" me for ego fellating, they pay for the drink and the tip is clearly for the emotional support. Which even creates an interesting juxtaposition… They're very aware of what the transaction is, but they get to relish in the feeling that the payment for my services is optional, and they're just super good and generous for slipping me a buck to listen to them whine. It gives them an element of control that makes them feel safe enough to be vulnerable.
Oh, wow. That must be a weird position for you to be in. Do you just have to stroke their egos, or do you also get to tell them to get over themselves?
A little bit of both. I do give some brutally honest advice topped with a healthy dose of teasing, but it always has to be couched in the assumption that I think they're actually a really wonderful guy. And to be fair, a lot of them are, or at least have the potential to be. But then there are also the complete scumbags who I would never acknowledge otherwise, but I have to because they're a regular, or my boss' friend, or my boss. (Especially my boss.)
I am late to this party but I would read any number of articles on the Toast written by bartenders and / or hairdressers about their insights into human behaviour. Particularly if they included linguistic gems such as "ego fellating".
For the short time that I bartended I was so grateful for the barrier that was the bar itself, just wide enough so no one could touch me. Bartending is a strange power position to be in. As a bartender, you also have the power to cut them off, and they know it.
" As a bartender, you also have the power to cut them off, and they know it."
We'd never get them (could we?), but I'd love to see the psychographic stats on just who those guys are.
Reeeeeeally wanna see the fave deleted comments on this one.
If they'd been left up, we could have tried out a template response!
For a woman to read this comment: $5
For a woman to read this comment and make sympathetic noises :$10
For a response to your comment that acknowledges your manfeels: $30
For a response that non-ironically includes the words "feminazi" or "friendzone": $100
Good idea! But I think those prices are too low. For a non-ironic usage of "friendzone" it should be at least $500 – $1000.
Maybe, like crack, the first taste should be free?
The first taste has been free for the last several thousand years.
Or "misandrist".
(*made the mistake of reading one of those some dood left on a 6-month-old article this morning*)
Yesssssss *smiles with a lot of sharp, shiny teeth*
Enobaria? That you?
:-)
yes true facts.
the longer I have been a therapist the less I work for free and I do my best to only smile at men I know in some capacity or who are actively doing something helpful/kind/or just busking, I smile at buskers.
Simultaneously cackling and fist-pumping, this is great. Especially the and then women explained to them that to have their anger acknowledged, they would have to pay.
I actually do know someone who has monetised this skill. Check out http://www.jordangrayconsulting.com
Certainly, his success as a coach for men is based partly on the fact that he is a man, and other men are able to see him as an expert worth paying, but I don't think the industry is closed to women. Maybe try it out?
"Housework is not work. Sex work is not work. Emotional work is not work. Why? Because they don’t take effort? No, because women are supposed to provide them uncompensated, out of the goodness of our hearts."
So succinct, and so totally on it that I felt my sense of self chime!
I think elder care goes on that list as well.
This follows a major frustration of mine where women are given the professional advice to work for companies with generous (snort) maternity benefits ala Lean In aka "work for companies with heart of gold" instead of insisting on systemic change.
I can't thumbs up this enough. Don't drink the lean in kool aid!
A lot of times when we say "society favors men," we mean "society favors a particular kind of jerk, and teaches men to be that kind of jerk." Let's stop favoring jerks, instead of trying to get women to be jerks. Just because men are doing it doesn't mean it's better.
Goddamn right.
Several of my friends are engaged in lifestyle or relationship coaching, and I do feel more disinclined to talk about that sort of thing with them now because it would be asking them to do their actual job for free just because we are friends, which is not a friendly thing to do at all.
Yes, but this also means I owe my mother and sister about 3 million euros in backpay what with the constant emotional work I throw at them. Also, what should I pay the MEN in my life who I use as free shrinks?
Are you reciprocating in kind? I can't tell via internets how facetious you're being, but if you're worried that you might be using them, just ask! Even if you aren't, they'll probably appreciate it.
I think I should be able to walk up to catcallers and street harassers and charge them a creep tax. Fifty bucks for leering, 100 for whistling, 500 for trying to follow me, 10,000 for unwanted touching. And if they don't pay up I should be able to cut out their tongues.
What you are describing is the basic activity of government.
Governments impose codes of behavior and enforce them with punishments.
Depending on your jurisdiction, you can take practical steps to make this goal a reality. For example, in the USA, you can hire lawyers. Of course, if you have neither money nor other resources, you're going to run into the typical problems of the working class.
"And if they don't pay up I should be able to cut out their tongues."
I can think of other things to cut off that might prove a more effective deterrent.
That'd solve a biiiig chunk of the debt crisis in a hotter-than-New-York minute, I'll bet.
*fist-pump* I LOVE THIS.
I've noticed this in myself, not so much in my personal life (I've been able to weed those people out and my house is a damn disaster) but in my work. I'm 31, and just now transitioning out from "service"-style roles where I need to be an amiable helper to being able to turn down requests for my assistance, but I know it's going to rear its head throughout my career, regardless of how many technical skills I acquire.
These positions (administrative, support, service) are usually underpaid and the first to be eliminated during budget crises. They're also routinely held by women, and have a separate career trajectory.
aka the "pink collar ghetto".
And usually as underpaid as teachers, nurses (though that's changing as more men enter the profession *cough*), social workers, and PR professionals.
Which are also seen as "service" professions, and whose ranks are more frequently filled with women.
Coincidence? I think not.
Even if you don't actually paid I recommend saying you will charge like $1000 for the answers to things because it will shut that rando right up.
I'm going to start doing that.
"That's $1000 an answer."
(I should already be doing it, but that's a different rant.)
As a professional Tarot reader, can I just say YES to this entire article. The hardest part of going into that line of work, besides the snarky side-eye from people who think you don't have to have any actual skill to memorize multiple meanings for 78 cards rightside up/upside down and then further meanings based on where they turn up in a layout and then having to field multiple questions while not appearing to keep an eye on the clock, make people feel comfortable, interact with some extremely intense emotions, not lie to people, not seem too authoritative since nothing is written in stone and yet appear authoritative enough that they'll recommend you to friends/come back/feel supported, all the while exercising sympathy and intuition and some kind of stubborn belief that you are okay for doing this job and you're not a charlatan who gets the vulnerable to hand you their watch and money for a gold bridge….
(DEEEEEP BREATH)
Yeah, this article really spoke to me. It spoke to me professionally and as a woman. I am hella underpaid.
BRB, gotta prepare an invoice for mansplaining and hand it to my husband's friend.
Can we make this a thing? I'd be happy to do up some nifty PDF templates.
Yes please!
DONE. I don't think I can attach a PDF to a comment but I can give you my email address (the one I don't mind if webcrawlers pick up). Unless Nicole or Mallory would post it? I'm trying to get Dropbox to work for me but it won't.
The payment we get for providing emotional support for friends and family is receiving emotional support from them in return. Monetizing that doesn't make sense. I wouldn't want my friendships and family relationships turned into labor contracts.
As other commenters have noted, if a particular friend/family is consistently sucking much more emotional energy out of you than is ever returned, it's time to set some boundaries, or even cut them out of your life (or get help, if they're a dependent family member).
This discussion has helped clarify some recent issues for me: My husband and I are adoptive parents of special-needs kids (the special needs being emotional/behavioral). He works full-time and I've had to basically quit work to take care of the kids. But the time spent in what people think of as typical parenting tasks isn't the problem – it's the vast emotional drain of caring for kids who need vast amounts of emotional support, and can't return it (they're kids still dealing with their own trauma). I'm often exhausted, and feel like I haven't accomplished anything (the house is a mess, the bills haven't been paid), but what I have done is provide this essential emotional support that few even recognize as something people (parents, mothers) do – something that is in itself worthwhile.
You rock for prioritising your kids like that and working so hard for your family. I hope you immediately start getting a lot more support and appreciation.
OMG, thank you for this post!
Being a listener to two especially self-important men talking, talking, talking just this week, I feel validated in my dislike of dudes only interested in themselves. However, when I offered an opinion, it was quickly shot down with subtly derogatory remarks. I felt so used.
Hoo. I'm glad I read this article and the comments. It's exactly what I needed right now. I've been going through a thing recently and I've turned to several of my female (and male) friends for advice and support. But I got to a point where, even if I had something I really needed to get off my chest, I kind of felt guilty about asking them for their input *again*. It felt like our relationships were slowly turning one-sided. Like my problems were the only thing we ever talked about, and I didn't like where this was headed. I wasn't really sure what to do about it other than try to find anything else to talk with them about, or feebly attempt to offer emotional support of my own. Thank you thank you thank you for this article.
nice..
Love the attention brought to this issue, but in my experience, it's always played out in far more complicated ways (in terms of gender, respect for the labor, etc.). When I (a woman) think of who I can turn to for advice and camaraderie, it's men as often than women. Not sure why… It's just always been that way. I've also provided a massive amount of emotional counseling over the years (along with various kinds of 'practical' counseling, usually woven into the emotional stuff), but that's been for women as much or more than for men. Some of it's been heavy duty stuff – family members or friends struggling with past or present abuse, addiction, homelessness and other financial crises, immigration issues… The system too often fails big time in helping people who have little money with these problems. And forget monetizing it – there's no way to even count it as a skill on a resume or CV. If we go volunteer or 'intern' at some organization for free (rampantly demanded nowadays – all this expected free labor, something only some people can afford to do or have the time to do), we can list that. But to try to list all the stuff you've done for people you know, experiences that have given you an enormous array of skills and qualities, would usually just count against you by making you seem like somebody who really doesn't get how the whole thing works. This is something women trying to get paid jobs after some years of unpaid labor having and caring for kids (or other loved ones) have railed against for ages. But for many of us, it's more than that. Those with very non-middle-to-upper-class lives are more likely to have an array of loved ones with the aforementioned problems (or to have some of those problems ourselves) – with no 'experts' to turn to for real help in this country. Or going to 'experts' can sometimes just cause more trouble. So we nurture and advise and carry each other, with no way to explain to various professional gatekeepers the wisdom and abilities we've gained in doing so.
LOVE THIS! While I have no need or desire to be paid for emotional labor, I am happy to see someone calling this out – this thing we (women) do that is expected of us, unappreciated, often unnoticed, altogether exhausting, and takes real effort. I think the best payment we could possibly receive for this emotional labor is reciprocation.
I recognize the scenario, but in my experience, it has happened WAY more with women friends than guys. It's the usual: "yes, yes he DOES love me, he just doesn't know it yet" thing. Hours of crisis hotline, then not so much as a text as soon as they end up hooking up with him.
At first I wanted to resist, but there's definitely a point, if not a price.
Where I get it is that I've been told variously that I'm good at (rarely) and not very good at (much more frequently) providing emotional support. Being good at something might or might not be subject to monetization, but I get that it can be work to get it right.
As it happens, I'm pretty good at listening, but I figure that's payback for my lack (above)
People tell me I'm good at advice, that I'm level-headed and all. So I put up an ad on craigslist: I will listen to your tale of woe, give you advice, and you buy me lunch. My post was taken down for violating their standards.
There are some people — both men and women — who expect an exhausting amount of emotional support from their acquaintances without giving anything in return. Some people call them psychic vampires. It's a parasitic relationship disguised as a friendship. I've run into a couple of these suckers and have had to pry them off my neck before all the blood was drained away. They prey on the kind and caring.
A true story for labor class.
You may already know, but this article has inspired an epic commentary thread on metafilter: http://www.metafilter.com/151267/Wheres-My-Cut-On…