The Journal Of The InnKeeper

Thumbnail sketch on what is Emotional Labor for those who are still struggling with it:

Emotional Labor is when you perform emotions as a form of labor, usually to manage other people's emotions.

Originally, it meant "labor" in the capitalistic sense, meaning you perform emotions as part of your actual job.  So, like, customer service reps perform "happiness" in order to manage the emotions of their customers, i.e. keep the customers happy.  It has been stretched to include the unpaid labor found in interpersonal relationships, which would include things like performing happiness or performing calmness in order to keep your romantic partner or kids happy or calm or satisfied or whatever.

I feel that this stretch is within the bounds of "reasonable evolution of language", where certain terms are coined to address a very particular concept so we need those terms to be limited to that concept in order to discuss them.  But over time the term grows to cover adjacent or related concepts.  Sometimes that stretch is reasonable, and sometimes the stretch results in the term becoming so widely applicable and so widely used that it effectively renders the term "useless" for addressing any particular issue.

The further stretching of the term "emotional labor" to include basically any job duty or function typically performed by women in interpersonal relationship, jobs, or social settings, especially if she is not happy doing it, is, I believe, an *unreasonable* evolution of that term.

Because then the term is stretched so widely that nobody really knows what we're talking about anymore and the original problem of requiring mostly women to perform emotional states in order to manage other people's emotional states is still a problem that we need to address but now we can't talk about it because the waters are muddied with all this other extraneous stuff.

So, Emotional Labor is when people have to perform or express emotions that they may or may not be feeling as a form of labor, either as part of their paid jobs or as part of their roles in interpersonal relationships, and is disproportionately assigned to those jobs and roles overwhelmingly held by women.

If we want to talk about also being expected to do the domestic chores, or do the managerial duties, or do the Relationship Maintenance, which are all topics that need addressing both on a personal level within our relationships and a cultural level as it pertains to systemic power imbalances, I recommend removing these topics out from under the umbrella of the "emotional labor" phrase and instead try calling them "domestic labor", "managerial labor", and Relationship Maintenance, respectively.

And I'm sure other similar terms could be found that would adequately convey the concepts, as well as I'm sure there are other adjacent concepts that would benefit from being named and discussed.

Are you expressing emotions authentically?  Are you repressing emotions because of your own personal beliefs on the appropriateness of the time / place / situation?  Then you are probably not doing Emotional Labor right now.

Are you doing all the physical labor keeping the household running and feeling resentful about it?  Feeling anxious about it?  Feeling angry about it?  You're probably not doing Emotional Labor right now, whether you are expressing emotions or not.

Are you behaving in a way that implies that you are feeling an emotion that you do not feel?  Are you behaving in a way that implies you are NOT feeling an emotion that you do feel?  And are you doing so for someone else's benefit, to make, encourage, or support them in feeling a particular way?  And is it part of your duties in a role you are in?  Then you are probably doing Emotional Labor.

Emotional Labor, as a concept, is not necessarily always a bad thing.  It's kind of the definition of acting, as a profession.  It's part of what caregivers do, and therapists, and bartenders, and funeral directors, and sex workers, and people who go into other empathetic professions where compassion for their clients / customers is part of the job.

And when someone in a romantic or familial relationship is having an emotional meltdown, it's really freaking helpful to have someone else nearby remain the grownup and help either keep things together or pick up the pieces.  Often we can afford for only one of us to fall apart at a time.

The big problem with Emotional Labor, and the reason why the term was coined, is that this particular duty falls disproportionately onto women, and in roles where managing other people's emotions is not a necessary function of the role they agreed to play.

As your secretary, I agreed to answer phones and type dictation, not pretend to be cheerful while you overwork me just to keep you happy with me so that I don't lose my job.  If I'm having issues at home, I should be able to grump about while filing, so long as the filing actually gets done and I'm not taking out my grumping on my coworkers.  Being "happy" for 9 hours a day is not actually necessary to successfully performing the job of a secretary.  Being *polite* might be, but not being *happy*.

So - performing or expressing emotions as part of one's duties in a role, usually to manage another person's emotions - that's Emotional Labor.

I do so appreciate an employer who appreciates me.

I got booked for a gig out of town last fall, but I was being paid as a local - no travel, per diem, or hotel or anything.  It's fine, it's an annoying drive but in Florida, one that lots of people are willing to make without pay.  I wouldn't normally, but I took it merely because I like both the employer and the people I knew who were already booked on it.  And, it's not like I was terribly busy what with my largest client still not having employed me since they fired me for wearing a hoodie, almost 2 years ago now.

Anyway, my client is not in FL and didn't know exactly how far it would be for me to drive.  When he found out how far it was, he upped my rate by $50.  Then he finally got word on what kind of gig it was.  There was some massive security to go through and they wanted to start our call time 3 hours early (which we'd get paid for, thereby moving up the time we start overtime by 3 hours too, and since our out-time wasn't changing, I would more than likely go into OT with this new start time).

So he called me to offer me another $50 on top of my rate for my trouble (which then also increases my OT rate).

As the security implies, the gig was a Big Fucking Deal, and it should actually be a really good time.  So on top of the extra pay, he also called to tell me to have a "good time" and "enjoy yourself" at the show.  Which means that it was going to be a pretty big party and we'd get to enjoy some of it while we work.  But my client was looking out for me and he appreciates me.  And he's showing it both with extra money and with Words of Affirmation and some leniency.

One of the things I love about my job is that it sometimes doesn't feel like work.  We may have responsibilities to do, but we're still working events like parties and concerts, and we're doing creative things, so working can be a lot of fun ... on the right gig.  I mean, I bring my camera with me to social events, so I do a lot of my work stuff literally for fun too.

Getting paid for it, and being given authority to run around and do what I do, expressing my creativity and enjoying some entertainment can be a really good time.

This gig was one of those times.  Man, I really miss working.

*sigh* I haven't ranted on this topic for a while, but I'm building playlists so I'm seeing it a lot.

"No copyright intended" does not save you from a copyright violation.

"Copyright" does not mean that you're claiming it for your own. That's plagiarism.

"Copyright" means that you have the RIGHTS to use the art (music in this case) in the way you are using it.

When you purchase a CD, you have the rights to listen to that CD in your house, your car, wherever you have a CD player pretty much.  But it's for *personal* listening.

If you are hosting an event that's open to the public, whether it's a free event or not, you don't have the rights to play that song unless you purchase a license to play it at a public event.  But, chances are, nobody will report you for it if you're not charging money.

If you *do* charge money for a public event, then you *really* don't have the right to play that song unless you've purchased a commercial license for it.

You can play the song you purchased from a CD or from iTunes at your house with your friends over.  But you can't give them a copy of the CD.  And you can't put it up on YouTube for the whole world to hear for free.  Adding "no copyright intended" doesn't absolve you of a copyright violation because that's not what the copyright violation is.

Now, in most circumstances, you will probably not be reported and there will be no consequences for you, other than people like me giving you the side-eye for not paying artists for their art.  I'm just telling you the actual (layman's translation of) "copyright".

And making your own art that works in conjunction with another piece of art (i.e. animating a music video to go along with an existing piece of music) makes this area a little muddier, so let's leave that part out for now.

And nobody better come in my comments with "but what about Fair Use?" because most circumstances where people are doing this don't qualify for Fair Use, because if they did, they wouldn't be using this disclaimer, they'd be using the appropriate disclaimers, so even bringing up Fair Use is a distraction - learn the basics before moving to the more advanced stuff.

If you're going to share artists' art without paying for it, at least share it directly from their channels and sources so that they get the page views or download counts or whatever.

Just don't think that "no copyright intended" is how you get out of a copyright violation.  It's not about claiming the art as your own (although doing that will give the other person more of a legal case, should it ever go to court).  It's about what legal RIGHTS have you purchased or been given to access that artwork.

For instance, the polydragon symbol is a copyrighted design.  Franklin and I both have copyrights to it because the person who designed it is a former partner of mine and he gave us copyright to sell items with that design because he wasn't interested in doing that himself.  Then I gave Bonedaddy Bruce permission to sell that design in his vinyl shop in exchange for a commission of all the stickers he sells, and also in exchange for him cutting for me all the stickers that *I* sell at cons and on my site, for which I pay him a cut of each sale for that labor.

That's how copyrights are exchanged.  No one else is allowed to download, post, or sell anything with the polydragon on it (except for the graphics I have stamped with my copyright info available at the Poly Tees website).  No user pics, no FB cover banners, no tattoos, no t-shirts, no Instagram pictures - nothing, unless you ask me for permission.

Songs are the same way - you buy an album or a song and you have the right to listen to it personally using the medium in which you bought it.  That's it.  Sharing it with the caveat "no copyright intended" doesn't absolve you of a copyright violation because that's not what "copyright" means.

If you run a red light even though you didn't intend to run a red light, you still ran that red light and you would be responsible for any fines or restitution or even any jail time or legal status as a result of the consequences of running that red light.

At least with running a red light, that could legitimately be an accident if you didn't see it or something.  But uploading a song to YouTube is a deliberate act.  You didn't "accidentally" upload the song, you did that on purpose.  You're just ignorant of the law.  However, as they say, ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it.  You're still responsible for following the law and the consequences for breaking it even if you're not aware of the laws.

Also, I'm not saying that I necessarily agree or that there aren't times one can justify doing so, morally or ethically speaking. I'm just saying what the law *is*.

"No copyright intended" is not a "get out of copyright violation free" card for sharing art without paying for it, with or without accepting money in exchange for sharing.  That's not what "copyright" means.

#PetPeeve #StarvingArtist #MyLandlordDoesNotTakeExposureCredit #YouAreNotEntitledToOtherPeoplesLaborJustBecauseYouWantIt #AtLeastWhenIViolateCopyrightIKnowThatIsWhatIAmDoingAndWillAcceptTheConsequencesOfIt