Yes, communication is a very important part of discussing concepts, but its a bit like being interrupted by a grammar nazi while you're trying to indicate that you're drowning.

For what its worth, I agree with you. I don't like the term emotional labor for this type of situation. But that's the term that's commonly applied to it and correcting what its called isn't fixing the issue. And I don't think that boiling it down to "Sorry, you should have thought of this before you married the guy." is helping anyone.

After all, how does she know who does the cleaning, planning, keeping track of birthdays in my relationship?

And I don't think it's fair to dismiss her gender-targeting delivery as a trivial detail such as grammar, she's clearly a professional writer and it's hard to imagine it's accidental.

I wonder if she's playing on her audience's pent-up emotions and intentionally stirring controversy to get more-internet attention? (not quite trolling, but a gentler form)

Only if the delivery is offensive, otherwise the message is more important.

To give an example, I'm a native English speaker, and when I speak with some non-native English speakers they can make some quirky decisions on how they deliver their message. However, if I've understood the underlying message, I'll look past it, and address what they meant.

To bring it back to the topic at hand, meta discussions like the one we're having now often start out as a form of deflection. Regardless of the term 'emotional work' (I prefer 'hidden work', you may have a different preference), do you agree that the underlying message of the article is broadly correct? It's not so much about who takes on the 'hidden work', but rather it's about the toll it takes.

If you unentangle the first example the author gives, she wants to give a task to the man, without explaining how to do it, and then complains that they don't do it properly. But it's not even just that, it's her wrapping this task into a "Mother's Day gift", i.e. forcing the man to do emotional labor to figure out what the woman really wants and how exactly to do it. This is a counter-example to her overall argument, both in her literal words(about emotional labor), and (I'm guessing here) in the underlying meaning of "men should do more of the hidden work"(how do you expect them to do the "hidden work" if you never explain to them that you're doing it, you want to share the responsibility, etc?).

If there's a deeper underlying message that I'm missing here, please, I'm interested in knowing about it. But every time I read an article like this, all I can think of is "dysfunctional relationship" and "unreasonable expectations".

This is where you're wrong. The wife makes it very clear to the husband how she wants the job done. This is clear because the husband reluctantly acquiesces to her request before deciding to go with a different approach. Once you accept that the wife's instructions were clear, the rest of your argument falls down.

People who understand the grandparents definition of emotional labour are going to read the first couple paragraphs of this article, wonder what the author is on about, and quit reading.

The terminology shapes the way people think about the topic. And people need to understand the issue to fix it. Otherwise you're just shotgun debugging.

and correcting what its called isn't fixing the issue

No, it doesn't. But presenting the issue poorly isn't helping fix it any faster, either. This entire conversation was largely avoidable had the article communicated better.

Judging by your post, we could reword the article down to this: "Men should take up more household chores". Okay, that's uncontroversial. Digging down into the first example of the article:

"What I wanted was for him to ask friends on Facebook for a recommendation, call four or five more services, do the (emotional labor) work I would have done if the job had fallen to me."

Wouldn't it be easier to just tell the guy to do this, rather than veil it in a Mother's Day gift and expect him to "do the right thing"? Is it not the partner's responsibility to communicate clearly what they want, why they want it, etc? Why is the assumption that your partner, your loved one in life, is being malicious, is unwilling to do "the emotional labor", rather than just not knowing how to do it? Would it be fair if I asked my partner to "buy me a new PC for my birthday", and then complained that she didn't do research on the manufacturers, didn't make a custom build out of individual specced components, but rather bought me the first google result?

What I am continuously disappointed about in these discussions is how the authors, almost always female, seem to treat their partners like shit. I would never think to blame my partner for not being as good as something as me; I would look for a way to teach them, I would take this as a bonding experience for our relationship. This is why I will turn the author's claim around - no, you aren't "fed up", you're nagging - when did you make an honest effort to help your partner do the things you want them to do? How is what you're doing productive?!

When I was a manager, kicking the micromanagement habit required months of conscious effort. It wasn't easier at first. A problem with most bad habits is that overcoming them involves things getting worse before they get better.

It took a while for people to believe that they could make their own decisions. Most of them had already been doing so, but keeping their managers out of the loop. Giving up control meant that I was actually allowed to know what was going on.

If someone complains to me that people aren't taking initiative, I ask them if the people are really allowed to take initiative.

Isn't that what she's saying? She doesn't want to have to tip-toe around her husband's feelings the way she seems to have to. She spends a lot of emotional labor (or capital, if you prefer) trying not to point out obvious things like, "I shouldn't have to tell you to put away the thing you took out. I shouldn't have to praise you for doing the work you were expected to do. I shouldn't have to just accept that you never reciprocate those emotions when I do the things you can't seem to, or want praise for."

What she's saying is she wants to do less work, and then she throws the term "emotional labor" in there as though that's a catch-all description for any work that she normally does that she would rather not be doing. But maybe I just don't understand the term.

"Then I tried to gingerly explain the concept of emotional labor: that I was the manager of the household, and that being manager was a lot of thankless work. Delegating work to other people, i.e. telling him to do something he should instinctively know to do, is exhausting. "

Nope, again, she's just saying she's doing a lot of work, specifically here delegation and managerial work. This is the way she is explaining the concept of "emotional labor" but most people just call it work and/or management.

I'm not sure how it helps to call it "emotional labor". It just confuses the issue putting focus on the individual's personal symptoms as the result of a problem rather than the problem itself. The real issue seems to be a work imbalance which leads to frustration. Fix the work imbalance, the frustration goes away.

I think its harder for people to not be dicks to one another, if they've never learned the value of minding ones manners, and it has to be stated: our modern society doesn't really promote this fact. More like, "get your own way no matter what" these days, it seems ..

Sometimes terms mean different things in different circles or groups or contexts, it doesn't mean either usage is "wrong" necessarily.

Edit:

That is a shame because it does sound like an interesting concept.