On Emotional Labor

[ysabetwordsmith]

I was fascinating to find this quote that referenced emotional labor among the trials of women and men:

nature has decreed that for what men suffer by having to shave, be killed in battle, and eat the legs of chickens, women make amends by housekeeping, childbirth, and writing all the letters for both of them ...
-- Jan Struther

Comments

Re: Maybe being pedantic, contrary or just a pain...

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> Like: I saw a psychologist in a news or internet column suggest a parent, whose child might have ADHD, to set up strong consequences for misbehavior in the relevant settings. At first, I thought it was cruel (partly because most childhood punishments for me were far too severe for not staying quiet in class) but I realized that this made sense, assuming the consequences (and hopefully, the rewards for good behavior) were enough to encourage the child's best efforts. <<

In what way does this help a child live with the brain they have? It does not. It's meant to force them to be pleasing to others, at their own expense, and punish them if they fail or refuse. Their ability is rarely if ever taken into consideration, their needs even less so. It's about trying to force children to be whatever someone else wants, instead of being themselves. Neurovariant. Gay. Touch-dominant. Whatever.

Hell, they're down to making normal children sit still so long it's causing nerve damage. I have no sympathy.

>> I'm still leery of it - most folks with problems like ADHD can go "normal" for a while with effort <<

Consider how much effort it takes to pretend to be something you're not, all the time, because what you are is unacceptable to the people who hold total power over your life. Sure, they can do it for a while. Some years. It's why we're seeing a huge upswing in teen breakdowns. After a few years of school, the kids are exhausted and falling apart.

>> and oftentimes, the stimulants used make that effort *far* less. (For anyone who doesn't know, I take strong stimulant meds, and they aren't enough, but they're far less "not enough" than nothing.) <<

If it works for you, that's great.

But let's not forget state-dependent memory. Suppose you drug a child for a decade or two, through most or all of their school career. As an adult, that person may decide the side effects or risks exceed the benefit -- or not have the money now they're expected to pay the dealer themselves -- and stop taking the drug. Everything they learned in school, along with the rest of their childhood, is in the "+stimulant" part of the memory bank. It is now harder to access when not drugged. Much the same as drunk memories are harder to access when sober. That's a very serious problem, and basically nobody is paying attention to this.

>>All of this is to say, I could see that parent being told "look, you're a parent, not a friend. You're not going to be strict forever - just until you feel comfortable that you're getting through and encouraging good behavior; once you see whether a child's normal, self-interested effort is, or isn't, enough, you can let up." <<

If you have a child who is misbehaving, this may work. If you have a child who is neurovariant, they are never going to wake up one morning and be "good" and neurotypical. It'd be like expecting your gay kid to turn straight, which also doesn't happen, although gods know people try to make it. Once you start using force, you have to keep it up, or you lose everything and then some. Hence the kids who get out of school and say, "I'll show you! I'll never read another book again!" And they DON'T.

Re: Maybe being pedantic, contrary or just a pain...

[johnpalmer]

Yeah, I knew this was a dumb idea. Oh well.

>> Like: I saw a psychologist in a news or internet column suggest a parent, whose child
>>might have ADHD, to set up strong consequences for misbehavior in the relevant s
>>settings. At first, I thought it was cruel (partly because most childhood punishments
>>for me were far too severe for not staying quiet in class) but I realized that this
>>made sense, assuming the consequences (and hopefully, the rewards for good behavior)
>>were enough to encourage the child's best efforts. <<

>In what way does this help a child live with the brain they have? It does not. It's
>meant to force them to be pleasing to others, at their own expense, and punish them if
>they fail or refuse.

I think that, in general, encouraging a child's best efforts is a good thing, and the best way of finding out what they can, and can't do. And if encouraging best effort shows they can't keep quiet in class, now you know that - and can set appropriate goals. On the other hand if it shows they can, great - problem solved. That's part of being a parent - helping children realize they can do more than they think, sometimes.

If it works for you, that's great.

But let's not forget state-dependent memory. Suppose you drug a child for a decade or two, through most or all of their school career. As an adult, that person may decide the side effects or risks exceed the benefit -- or not have the money now they're expected to pay the dealer themselves -- and stop taking the drug. Everything they learned in school, along with the rest of their childhood, is in the "+stimulant" part of the memory bank.

I take strong stimulants. I just told you that. And I'm really pissed off that you're telling me what you're afraid they're like, when you're sitting on the outside, and I'm sitting here on the inside, and could actually *tell* you some things if you *asked*.

Re: Maybe being pedantic, contrary or just a pain...

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> I think that, in general, encouraging a child's best efforts is a good thing, and the best way of finding out what they can, and can't do. And if encouraging best effort shows they can't keep quiet in class, now you know that - and can set appropriate goals. On the other hand if it shows they can, great - problem solved. That's part of being a parent - helping children realize they can do more than they think, sometimes. <<

It's great, if people try things and adapt if those don't work. I have seen less of this than I would like.

>> I take strong stimulants. I just told you that. And I'm really pissed off that you're telling me what you're afraid they're like, <<

Sorry the part where I upset you.

>> when you're sitting on the outside, and I'm sitting here on the inside, and could actually *tell* you some things if you *asked*. <<

I said, if they work for you, that's great. You're not the only friend I've got who finds such things life-improving. I'm glad they exist for people who find them helpful.

I also have friends who have found them life-destroying. A majority of those folks had no choice in the matter, and are now stuck with very serious consequences of other people's decisions about their bodies. Some of these folks have agitated for less drugging of children. I look at the rates of drug use on children -- many of these that weren't even tested on children, but were intended for adults originally -- and this concerns me. Sometimes it works out well, other times it's a disaster. I sympathize with the times it doesn't go well.

Since my own experiences with drugs have been iffy -- there are a lot that don't work right for me, and not so many that perform exactly as advertised -- this inclines me to be cautious.

Re: Maybe being pedantic, contrary or just a pain...

[johnpalmer]

Look: you conflate medical malpractice, coupled with neglect and/or abuse, with medical treatment. That's an ugly thing to do to someone for whom the issue isn't merely hypothetical.

And I wish I could say that your position was egregiously uninformed, but it isn't - it's what everyone seems to think. It's still harmful and wrong, but, granted, it's not egregiously uninformed. There are far too many blanket banquets going on.

(You see, after a breeder boy-bovine's blanket banquet, you end up with a mess of bullshit made up out of whole cloth.)

But you threw a new blanket-pie in my face, probably proud of how it showed your Deep Concern For The Children. And what it showed was that you were uninformed, but glad to spread fear.