No, the article literally says that whiteness explains why this mistake was made. The writer being not Indian was insufficient explanation - there must be a white person to blame! 

While I greatly, greatly admire the original concept and its author - and the recent interview in Slate - even the original analysis is based on gendered assumptions. We say flight attendants do “emotional labor” by smiling at assholes being rude to them, but we don’t say that lawyers or financial advisers do even…

Yeah, but do both. You are responsible for your happiness on your personal level, but we can also be happy and advance systemic change. Those are not incompatible.

Of course it should be this way. Why should my fiancee do work she doesn’t care about? I like homemade food so I cook. I have no right to instruct her to cook because I like homemade food even when she doesn’t care.

When a girlfriend whines to her boyfriend every day about work or friends or family or anxiety, we say the boyfriend listening is just “being a good partner”. When a boyfriend whines all the time, we say he’s obliging “emotional labor”.

Amen. 

The weird thing about the link above (and Hartley) is the assumption that when a woman does something a man doesn’t care about (like sending thank you notes or whatever), it’s not that the man has a valid position of not giving a f*ck, it’s that he’s wrong and the woman is doing the correct thing and he should be…

Because that society assumed men were initiators in sex and women were pursued. If that in itself renders something unacceptable in modern society, then we’ve hit the point of book burning - because everything from that era carries its cultural assumption, as does anything from any era, and one day the products of our…

I don’t think people are angry Chopra had a ridiculous uberwealth wedding. I think they’re angry about ridiculous uberwealthy conspicuous consumption and confused about why a progressive blog is so into celebrating unjust inequality simply because it’s about a celebrity they like.

Why? It was a very bad thing for her to do. Asking people to assault a woman because your husband is a POS is a bad thing to do. 

Well this is a huge surprise.

Honestly, I can’t think of anything tackier than branding your wedding. It’s misogynistic to assume that’s Chopra’s fault rather than both of them, but it’s square in the bullseye of tacky. 

Why not the $30/hour people said was a living wage in Washington? 

You can call 3-day lavious displays of wealth a ‘cultural tradition’ all you want but that doesn’t mean it isn’t conspicuous consumption. Being Indian doesn’t mean a tradition isn’t about ostentatious showing off of wealth. No more than being Chinese does or being Jewish does. 

That sex one is particularly depressing. I hope that woman finds a better partner. 

As a guy, almost none of that resonates with me. I’m the person in our couple who cooks and cleans, and among the social class I grew up with (middle class white jews), that’s the norm - men cook, like fashion, plan lives. I happen to have longer work hours and make more money, but she never learned to cook growing up…

I want to say bravo. I was not expecting Jezebel to be this rough with Hartley, but I thought she deserved it in whole. Her writing is bad, her thinking is unclear, unoriginal and sometimes incoherent. Her theoretical grounding is somewhere between non-existent and thin.

That’s not emotional labor. That’s labor. Heartley just doesn’t understand how words work. She thinks “emotional labor” means “all the things I didn’t want to do”. 

The traditional route is to go work for biglaw for 2-3 years - wildly overpaid for what you’re capable of - and then bounce to your passion after debt is reduced. It works. More than 50% of the associates I started with are now gone.

I agree with the thrust of this point - low salaries increase access for the wealthy children - but I lived on $30k a year for five years and honestly it was perfectly fine.