GeniesLoki

In order to call men suppressing their emotion "labour", you implicitly propose that it is in some way desirable that they do so. /

So I think that calling it labour kind of runs counter to the prevailing SJ narrative that men displaying emotion is always and everywhere a good thing. /

But I actually think @GeniesLoki is right, it is a form of emotional labour, in that actually if men did express their emotions more in certain contexts, many advocates of greater emotional openness would find that they don't actually like it very much. /

When people advocate for greater emotional expressiveness, imo they often have a very idealized idea of emotional expression in mind. They expect it to be poetic, and cathartic, and articulate, and beautiful. /

Everyone loves manly tears, especially when they're coming from a manly dude. The problem is that this unfortunately often just isn't what the real world looks like. Emotions can be ugly or misguided. They're messy, and they don't make sense. /

Additionally, I think many people do in fact find true weakness in men contemptible, although they may be unwilling to recognize that fact. /

So I think in many cases when men do express their emotions in real life, they're punished for it even by proponents of greater emotional expressiveness, partially because those proponents don't even notice what's going on. /

They don't pattern match the ugly, messy real world nature of the situation to the poetic ideal in their minds. I think SJ ideology needs to grapple harder with whether this kind of messy greater expressiveness is really worth it, and either bite the bullet or don't. /