Knights of the Old Republic and its sequel Star Wars:
On Unpaid Emotional Labor July 15, 2: Sex work is not work. Emotional work is not work.
No, because women are supposed to provide them uncompensated, out of the goodness of our hearts. We are told frequently that women are more intuitive, more empathetic, more innately willing and able to offer succor and advice.
How convenient that this cultural construct gives men an excuse to be emotionally lazy. How convenient that it casts feelings-based work as "an internal need, an aspiration, supposedly coming from the depths of our female character.
I try to spend my life enacting or at least preparing for war against every facet of patriarchy, but if there was one archetype in particular I could choose to destroy first, it would be the one that says sensitivity and nurturing and saintly levels of understanding and boundless, ceaseless patience aren't just women's work, but the fundamental tenets of womanhood itself.
It feels like I've swallowed poison every time someone says "feminine" when what they really mean is "acquiescent, submissive, and willing to put up with infinite shit in exchange for absolutely nothing at all. The implication that this is patently unfair, as emotional work is something that only women perform, kind of confuses me.
Isn't what the author considers "emotional work" simply the basis of every successful, supportive relationship, romantic or otherwise?
I mean I've ended up in relationships with women who lacked "sensitivity and nurturing", but that doesn't contradict the patterns of gendered behaviors and gendered behavior expectations.
I would guess that even in educated, liberal communities where it's accepted that both parties to a relationship will put some work in, the baselines for the proper amount of effort are not exactly equal, and aren't seen with unfiltered eyes.
Yes, and it is routinely devolved to women to perform the bulk of. I have had to ask several male friends, "What do you think friendship means? You cannot merely text me a picture of your dog after months and silence and then launch instantly into a tirade about how much you hate your job and you're so lonely etc.
I'm married to a pretty egalitarian man but even so I sometimes find myself saying, "Sweetheart, I cannot rehash this story about work again. Please talk to a friend about this.
I cannot listen any more. He also takes for granted that I'll arrange all social events involving other people, maintain familiar relations with our families and be open and supporting to him.
But he's not responsible for inviting his mom to Mother's day because that's my job. Our relationship is a work in progress but most of our conflict revolves around his assumptions that I like doing that stuff, that he could never be as good at it as I am and that I don't find it exhausting because Feminine.
Men would rather believe that there is something wrong with you than believe you do not desire them other than as friends.
The rate is 60 cents an hour. Oh dear god, yes.
Or, as a vaguely neuro-diverse woman, I would opt for the alternative approach: I know, I know, NotAllMen or whatever, but honestly? Every dude I know has the opportunity, on any given day, to make at least one woman's life just a little more equitable, and I'm sick of cutting them slack for not taking that opportunity.
Her rationale was that either you're just punching down and you're an asshole, or you're legitimately outraged. But if you're a man and you're outraged, well, you're in the position to contribute to the greater equality that you supposedly value. I expected outrage and backlash, but in matter of fact, our local abortion fund has profited mightily.
Describing emotional labor to the men I have dated is always exhausting. They do not fundamentally understand what the phrase even means. It is sitting down to lunch and having your friend tell you a long story about themselves, expecting you to interject with suggestions and kind words, for forty minutes before they even ask you how you are doing.Thre Views of Social Darwinism - The concept of Social Darwinism was a widely accepted theory in the nineteenth-century.
Various intellectual, and political figures from each side of the political spectrum grasped the theory and interpreted it in various ways. Today during an otherwise terrible lecture on ADHD I realized something important we get sort of backwards.
There’s this stereotype that the Left believes that human characteristics are socially determined, and therefore mutable.
"To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary.".
Henslin, Essentials of Sociology, 11/e Topic/A-head: What Determines Social Class? 5) What is the typical annual family income in the United States?
Diff: 1 Page Ref: Skill Level: Know the Facts LO: Explain the three components of social class—property, power, and prestige; distinguish between wealth and income; explain how property %(10).
*Components of Social Class: Classical Views Karl Marx: Social class on a single factor: peoples relationship to the means of production- the tools factories, land and investment capital used to produce wealth.
The Sociology of C. Wright Mills. by Frank W. Elwell Rogers State University. Before exploring the sociology of C. Wright Mills, there are two points about his sociology that I wish to briefly note.