Your Relationship Problems Aren't Always About the Patriarchy
"Mankeeping," Pearson writes, "describes the work women do to meet the social and emotional needs of the men in their lives, from supporting their partners through daily challenges and inner turmoil, to encouraging them to meet up with their friends."
For the story, Pearson interviewed 37-year-old Eve Tilley-Colson, who while seemingly happy with her boyfriend, "finds herself offering him a fair amount of social and emotional scaffolding," according to Pearson. Tilley-Colson said she tends to make the social plans, and she and her boyfriend hang out primarily with her friends.
"I feel responsible for bringing the light to the relationship," she told Pearson.
The article quickly attracted online controversy, with X users in particular pointing out that mankeeping seemed to describe, well, the typical emotional support most people are expected to provide in a loving relationship.
"Why does it seem like so many people just don't enjoy being with their partners??? My bf can spend all his time with me I love him," wrote one user.
"'Emotional labor' has become code for 'people should never present an inconvenience to me' This is why so some people's friendships consist of very little more than going to brunch," added commentator Allie Voss. "If you want surface level 'emotional labor' you're going to get surface level love."
I'm inclined to agree with this criticism. Healthy relationships usually require that we provide emotional support to our partners—the support "through daily challenges and inner turmoil," derided as "mankeeping" in the article. Pathologizing this support is to misunderstand what close human relationships are even about. Loving someone else and receiving their affection and comfort requires give and take. It won't always be perfectly equal, nor will it be entirely pleasant.
When the proposal for my upcoming book was on submission, I certainly was not particularly pleasant to emotionally support. I spent the month of May cycling between various forms of dread, panic, and hysterical despair. I remember the month primarily from the vantage point of my couch, which I frequently flung myself onto during fits of anguish. (The book, by the way, sold to a great publisher, and my fears that it wouldn't sell went unrealized.) Through it all, my husband was extremely patient and very sweet. If he was annoyed by my antics, he certainly didn't show it.
Was he "womankeeping" that month? Was I forcing him into some kind of burdensome "emotional labor"? If he thought so, I somehow doubt that a legacy media organization would publish an essay about how men everywhere are being worn down by their neurotic wives and girlfriends.
While this construction rightly strikes most as a bizarre overgeneralization, contemporary cultural criticism is full of essays premised on wild generalizations from individual relationship dynamics, usually stemming from the idea that anytime a woman is dissatisfied in her heterosexual relationship, not only are her complaints justified, but the patriarchy probably has something to do with it. Just in the past two months alone, The New York Times has published essays from women bemoaning that men are retreating from emotional intimacy and that men themselves are "what is rotten in the state of straightness." I don't think these women are exaggerating their romantic woes; rather, I'm just not convinced that their problems represent broader cultural trends, especially trends that boil down to sexism in some way.
Even the popularity of the term emotional labor itself is part of this tendency. The original meaning of the term was literal, coined in the 1980s to describe how service-sector jobs often require employees to perform certain emotions for customers, such as the way waitresses are required to act friendly in order to get good tips. Now, the term applies to just about every act of service you could imagine. Compromise? Emotional labor. Playing with your kids? Emotional labor. Warning your husband that he's about to accidentally break a lawn mower? Somehow, also emotional labor.
To be sure, there are plenty of persistent problems faced by heterosexual couples that probably come down to gender or sexism. But surely that doesn't mean you should blame every unhappy relationship on men or heterosexuality in general.
Still, doing so remains a bankable tactic. The past few years, for example, have seen a glut of "divorce memoirs" that paint one woman's unhappy marriage as representative of all heterosexual marriages. Lyz Lenz, for example, writes in her 2024 memoir This American Ex-Wife that her book "[is] about how specifically breaking the bonds of marriage, the system that was designed to oppress you, will open up your life to create something new and something better."
The unnamed protagonist of Sarah Manguso's 2024 autofiction novel Liars paints marriage with an even broader brush. "Maybe the trouble was simply that men hate women," she muses. "A husband might be nothing but a bottomless pit of entitlement. You can throw all your love and energy and attention down into it, and the hole will never fill."
These books describe genuinely miserable marriages, but none seem to consider whether their marriages could have been bad without representing the state of heterosexual marriage itself. The individual woman's experience is uncritically presented as universal, provided that it is a negative one.
"I feel like there's a certain script you have to abide by if you're a woman writer, writing about motherhood, dating or marriage, in certain literary circles," Substacker CartoonsHateHer wrote in a post about the mankeeping dust-up. "You basically have to embody the spirit of someone who is vaguely put-upon, not only by men but by life, and it's society's problem."
My plea to the divorce memoirists—and now, for those complaining of "mankeeping"—is that an unhappy relationship is not always a symptom of female oppression. Especially when it comes to the minor annoyances described in the latest trend articles, the simplest answer might just be that you don't like your boyfriend that much. Your relationship problems might just be downstream of the fact that you're dating a loser, not the male loneliness epidemic or male entitlement. Sometimes a relationship is just unhappy. Unfortunately, those stories are much less likely to go viral.
The post Your Relationship Problems Aren't Always About the Patriarchy appeared first on Reason.com.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
13 minutes ago
- Forbes
What Is The Fawn Response, And How Does It Show Up At Home And In The Workplace? Meg Josephson's New Book ‘Are You Mad At Me?' Explains
The fawn response—which Meg Josephson writes about in her new book Are You Mad at Me?: How to Stop Focusing on What Others Think and Start Living for You—is a relatively new concept that is not yet widely understood. Josephson's book, out August 5, explains how it affects individuals at home and at work, and how 'more people struggle with it than you think.' Are you mad at me? is not just the title of Josephson's book, but, as she tells me over Zoom, it's a 'feeling that so many of us have but maybe don't have the language for. And my hope is that this book puts language to that feeling.' That question—Are you mad at me?—represents a feeling that Josephson says she's felt from the time she was growing up in a home that she describes as quite volatile. There was addiction, she says, and instability. This has led to, as an adult, that feeling still being there, but manifesting as worrying if her friends are mad at her or thinking, if her boss said something as innocuous as, 'Can we talk?' that she was going to get fired. Josephson, now a psychotherapist, was simultaneously working through that feeling as she was beginning her therapy career, seeing her clients resonate with that feeling as well. 'And that was actually quite surprising to me, I think, because many of us feel quite alone in this rumination and overthinking, and especially for people pleasers, we're saying, 'Yeah, no worries' with a smile. But inside, it's like, 'Am I okay?'' she says. Josephson's book is for the people pleasers. The ruminators. The hypervigilant among us. Those who feel compelled to mask and conceal in an attempt to 'be perfect.' 'Knowing that other people think and feel this way can be surprising, because we feel so alone up here,' Josephson says. 'So just the relief of 'Oh, so many people feel this way' has really been the biggest takeaway.' 'This is such a common feeling' It's difficult to quantify how many people lean into the fawn response—more on what that is exactly in a moment—but it's worth noting that, when Josephson and I spoke together about this, we were two for two on the call as far as the fawn response goes. 'More people struggle with it than you think,' Josephson tells me, adding that 'This is such a common feeling.' As for the impetus of writing this book, 'I needed this book for sure,' she tells me. 'This is a book I needed 10 years ago and still continue to need because this is, as I talk about, this part that people pleases and worries doesn't go away,' Josephson says. 'We're not erasing that, but we're creating a relationship to it. So a lot of the things I write about, I'm reminding myself of constantly.' 'It's still there, I just feel like I can work through it easier' Before we go a moment further, let the expert tell you: finding peace with the inner people pleaser is possible. 'It's not about erasing these emotions, but when they arise, I feel less tension around them,' Josephson says. 'I let them be there. I feel less scared of the anxiety. I know it will pass. I know how to soothe myself through it. So I think it's freedom in that, not because it's not there, but because it's still there, I just feel like I can work through it easier.' Josephson's book is filled with strategies to work through this: the NICER acronym, the three Ps, rupture and repair, learning that it is safe to not be liked by everyone and that conflict isn't only good, but necessary—when handled in a healthy manner. How boundaries are essential, and how on the other side of 'no' is a life that feels good. These are concepts that some have mastered since their youth, and concepts that some—without the help provided through this book—might never grasp. 'The freedom is like, 'Oh, I don't need to change myself,'' Josephson says. ''I don't need to fix anything. I just need to be with what's here and let it be okay, because it's just human and it's this part of me that's trying to protect me.' And when we can just remove the layers of shame even that 'Something's wrong with me, I need to be fixed'—so much of the tension is that. When we can remove that, then we just have the emotion and it becomes so much easier.' Where does all of this stem from? How did those that lean into the fawn response get to be this way? 'My framework is usually 'How has this been necessary for self-protection?' whether that was in childhood, whether it's been in society to survive within the systems we have to,' Josephson says. 'It's hard to say. It's the classic nature versus nurture: Is it innate? Is it the environment that we're in? And I think, in some ways, it is a combination.' That said, Josephson tells me that growing up in an early environment where, for whatever reason, a person had to be hyperaware of how they're being perceived—to be hyperaware of people being happy and happy with you—contributes. 'You didn't know if things were unpredictable,' Josephson explains. 'Love was conditional. All a child wants and is focused on—their whole world—is safety and love and acceptance. And so that being taken away feels like a huge deal to a child. It is a big deal. Emotional safety and emotional connection is everything to a child.' If a childhood is volatile, emotionally unpredictable, if it carried a lot of tension, if a child had a caregiver who was really critical or emotionally absent or neglectful, while Josephson says it 'can look so different for people in their environments,' she adds, 'all of those things and environments over time create this conditioning to be on high alert all the time and to learn, 'Oh, in order for me to feel safe and loved, people need to be happy with me.' And I think that's kind of the thread between all of our different backgrounds.' This is an unconscious pattern, but 'healing starts with awareness,' Josephson says. By people pleasing or fawning, it's serving as a protective mechanism. Once we start to question, 'What is this?' or 'Why am I doing this?' a corner is turned. 'The way I see it is this is a younger part of us that is trying really hard to protect us,' Josephson says. 'And this younger part hasn't gotten the memo that we don't need this all the time. We need it sometimes, but not all the time.' Instead of saying to that younger part, 'What's wrong with you?' or 'Why can't you just be normal?' Josephson's book teaches 'how to soothe it to create a relationship to this part.' 'And as I say in the book, I still have these anxious thoughts and I just believe them less,' she adds. 'I can come back to a baseline more quickly because it's just chatter and it's not me. It doesn't feel like me as much anymore.' 'A lot of people don't know about it' Many have heard of the stress responses of fight, flight or freeze when it comes to how humans react when confronted with perceived threats or danger. It has only been since 2013 that the fawn response has been added to that list. Characteristics of the fawn response include people pleasing and attempting to neutralize the threat by being agreeable and accommodating; this often involves prioritizing others' needs and emotions at the expense of one's own, and WebMD lists overagreement, trying to be overly helpful, having a primary concern with making someone else happy, an overdependence on the opinions of others, little to no boundaries and being easily controlled and manipulated as signs of the fawn response in one's life. According to Psychology Today, 'the fawn response is commonly misunderstood due to its complexity.' It 'emerges when a person internalizes that safety, love or even survival depends on appeasing others, especially those who hold power over them. It is a profound psychological adaptation, often shaped in childhood, in homes where love was conditional, inconsistent or entangled with emotional or physical threat.' 'A lot of people don't know about it,' Josephson tells me of the fawn response, citing its relatively new introduction—just 12 years ago—and because not much has been written yet about it. It goes even deeper than that, she says. 'I think it's in part because it's new, but also because it's so rewarded in our society,' she says. 'We get promotions for being people pleasers. We're affirmed. We get validation for that.' In the workplace, the fawn response creeps in 'when we have a perceived threat like our boss is being a little cold,' or, at home, 'our partner is quiet. And then we're like, 'Are you mad at me?' Or maybe we immediately compliment them, or we try to be helpful so that they're okay with us. That can also feel as threatening to the body as a real, tangible danger in front of us.' The fawn response can be very helpful in one's life and career, whereas fight, flight or freeze might not be. 'And that's why I think it's so underdetected,' Josephson continues. Many people who resonate with the fawn response are high achievers. They're adaptable. They're charming. The fawn response can actually serve someone, until it's turned on when it doesn't need to be. Then, Josephson says, 'It's exhausting. It leads to burnout, it leads to resentment in relationships. We feel disconnected from ourselves. We feel like we're always performing.' In the book, Josephson writes that many fawners have harsh inner critics and that self-compassion is unfamiliar. At its peak, fawning is a disconnection from the self, abandoning one's needs in favor of someone else's. 'I think women especially—we're held under such a microscopic lens of, 'Am I doing things right? Am I doing enough? Am I too much? Am I not this enough?'' Josephson tells me. Men feel this, too, Josephson adds, 'but just in a different way.' In the workplace, she explains, 'it can manifest as that fear, the overthinking, feeling like you're in trouble a lot of the time—but it can also manifest more externally as overextending yourself, not having any boundaries with time or energy, volunteering for things when no one's asking you to do it, but maybe it feels like they are.' Ultimately, in writing Are You Mad At Me?, Josephson hopes people feel seen, become aware and give themselves the self-compassion they've deserved all along, but maybe have never shown to themselves. 'My greatest hope is that they have more understanding about why these patterns are there, but also more compassion and self-forgiveness in that they're not broken, there's not something wrong with them,' she says. 'These are self-protective patterns. So I hope, more than anything, the book can be an exhale. It can be an, 'Oh wow, thank goodness, and now I can move forward.' And I hope it's a way to come back to ourselves.' 'I hope that this can be a beginning of returning to your body, returning to who you are,' Josephson adds. 'And it's a process. It's a path. But I hope that people feel more excited and empowered to come back to themselves after a lifetime of self-abandonment. That's my hope.'
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Plans for $48M Palm Beach County animal shelter will help reach goal of zero euthanizations
Palm Beach County's animal shelter still euthanizes animals, but at a much lower rate than in previous years. Jan Steele, the director of Animal Care & Control, recently appeared before county commissioners to discuss the agency's operation. Among the topics discussed was the euthanization rate. The shelter would rather not kill any animal, but sometimes it has no choice, Steele said. The county shelter, unlike private ones, must accept any animal that is dropped off, she noted. Some have behavioral problems; others are sick. Efforts to find those animals adoptive homes pose a challenge. There is also a space problem. The facility, along Belvedere Road west of Florida's Turnpike in suburban West Palm Beach, is over capacity. As of July 20, the facility had 193 dogs with only enough space for 144. It had 172 cats with space for 100 Pets had to be either doubled or tripled up or housed in temporary crates while calls are placed to other shelters to take some of the animals. 'We need to have four or five kennels available to accommodate law enforcement,' Steele said. Once all options are exhausted, animals are put on the proposed euthanasia list, which Steele and a veterinarian review. Nonetheless, Steele noted, the agency has significantly improved its release rate, the percentage of animals released from the shelter without having to be euthanized. In 2023, the release rate was 86%. Five years earlier, it was just 69%. In 2013, more than 9,300 animals had to be killed; the figure was 1,221 in 2024. A taste of Royal Palm Beach: Decadent Cuban sandwiches, savory bowls of pho, even oxtail How has Animal Control cut back on its euthanization rates? Steele said the community is more aware of what is being done at the shelter, which provides for nearly 10,000 animals each year. More people are volunteering. And the county has expanded its offering of free sterilizations for both cats and dogs. The agency has also increased the number of community partners that take in pets at the shelter. The county had hoped to meet its goal of zero euthanizations in 2024. In 2014, county commissioners adopted a resolution that set a goal of ending euthanasia of all adoptable dogs and cats by that year. Recognizing that was not going to happen, the county extended the deadline for 'The Countdown to Zero' animal kills by an additional 10 years. MORE: Animal Care and Control is getting a new $48M facility with needed air-conditioned kennels The county has approved plans to build a new facility for Animal Care & Control. Construction is expected to begin sometime this winter. The facility's $48 million facelift will more than double its size and include air-conditioned kennels. It will allow for more animals to be accommodated. Steele noted that sick animals will be housed in a quarantine-isolation facility, allowing for veterinary care to be provided at a higher level. 'We will not have to euthanize pets simply because there's no place to house them,' she said. Mike Diamond is a journalist at The Palm Beach Post, part of the USA TODAY Florida Network. He covers Palm Beach County government. You can reach him at mdiamond@ Help support local journalism. Subscribe today. This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Palm Beach County animal shelter euthanization rate down Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Gray foxes are disappearing—so the Illinois Department of Natural Resources is stepping in
The Illinois Department of Natural Resources has closed gray fox hunting and trapping seasons across the state. This decision came after recent surveys and research pointed to a significant decline in gray fox numbers over the last decade, according to a community announcement. While hunters and trappers in Illinois reportedly harvest very few gray foxes, the closure is expected to remove added pressure on the species and help prevent further population loss, according to the announcement. On June 30, Gov. JB Pritzker signed Public Act 104-0019 into law, allowing the Illinois Department of Natural Resources authority to open or close gray fox seasons by administrative rule. The department then filed rules on July 9 to indefinitely close both hunting and trapping seasons for gray fox, according to the announcement. The gray fox population decline was attributed to complex factors, with most research pointing to diseases such as canine distemper and competition from other canids, including coyotes, as primary causes. The Illinois Department of Natural Resources said it will continue to conduct annual surveys and evaluate the gray fox population. The department also noted its use of scientific data to guide furbearer management, referencing previous openings of river otter and bobcat seasons when populations were determined to be stable. The department will continue monitoring gray fox numbers and look for ways to reverse the decline, according to the announcement. For more details, residents are encouraged to visit the department's website. This story was created by reporter Abreanna Blose, ablose@ with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Journalists were involved in every step of the information gathering, review, editing and publishing process. Learn more at This article originally appeared on State Journal-Register: Illinois bans gray fox hunting. Here's what it means for wildlife Solve the daily Crossword
