The Invisible Labor of Being Believed

The meeting is tomorrow at ten. You start preparing at four. Not because the material is complicated. You know it through and through. But knowing the subject matter is not the same thing as being believed.

So you put in hours of prep time that others might not: you pull the numbers again, you check the source, you rephrase the opening line so it sounds confident but not combative. You spend more time than you should wondering about the difference between confident and combative; a new executive will be in the meeting — how will he perceive it? You anticipate the question Mark will ask because he always asks that question. You build a slide to head off the question, even though he’ll ask it anyway. You are not preparing your argument, you’re preparing for doubt. 

This is the invisible labor of credibility. It can become a second full-time job: first you do your official work, then you do the credibility work. 

Not everyone has to do this; some people come pre-believed. Research shows that men — especially white men — are often seen as credible and competent in the workplace. For those who are automatically given the benefit of the doubt, preparing for a meeting is just a change to sharpen and refine an argument. But if you don’t have that built-in authority, you’re not just presenting an idea, you are pre-answering a cross-examination.

 

Credibility work is all the labor you put in before you speak. It can include a variety of things: 

  • softening emails
  • adding context so no one feels surprised
  • documenting decisions in case memory shifts later
  • sending follow-ups to confirm what was already clear
  • adjusting your language so your certainty reads as collaboration

Credibility work doesn’t just happen at work; it’s also happening before you go to work, when you rehearse what you’re going to say. It’s that conversation you practice de-escalating in your head while you’re driving somewhere. It’s second-guessing your tone.

The thing is, no one calls this labor. It’s not recognized as work because it looks like a lot of things: diligence, your personality, caring too much, or  — more harmfully — neurosis.

This is not neurosis, though. It’s adaptation, and more people than you realize are doing this in the workplace. But we don’t talk about it because admitting to it makes us seem less credible, not more credible. 

Like, if you have to do this work, you’re the problem. I’d like to posit that the system that makes many of us do this is the problem, so let me tell you a story about my own credibility work, which started in middle school. 

 

Growing up, I saw a lot of the women in my life undermined and trivialized. I was determined that this would not happen to me, so my plan — at the ripe age of 11 — was to read as many articles about career advice as I could. 

Because this was in the early ‘90s, my sources were the newspaper and the glossy client magazines sent out quarterly by my parents’ insurance company. Also because this was the early ‘90s, advice for women about “getting ahead at work” was questionable. 

There was a lot of emphasis on “power behaviors,” like a firm handshake, eye contact, and speaking in a low register. One piece of advice I internalized was to not trail off at the end of a sentence or lilt up, but to end sentences with a downward inflection.

I put this into practice at home and school immediately. In retrospect, it’s kind of funny. But also, it’s sad. I was a sixth grader. I should have been watching Disney Afternoon and Tiny Toons after school, not starting the credibility work for my future career.

 

The harm of credibility labor goes beyond a few missed afternoon cartoons, however. 

It’s exhausting work for those who have to do it, and it’s fraught with anxiety. The cruel irony is that this invisible labor actually does make a meeting run more smoothly. If you anticipate objections, there is less friction in the room. When you pre-answer questions, Mark doesn’t have to ask. When you over-document everything, projects stay aligned. 

The system benefits from your anxiety, but doesn’t recognize it.

However, we can recognize it if we look for the signs ourselves: 

  • Watch who can show up half-prepared and be given grace.
  • Watch who can say “This is just a thought,” and be rewarded for boldness.
  • See who can correct themselves mid-sentence without it counting against them.
  • Notice who arrives fully footnoted.
  • See who brings three versions of the same argument.
  • Notice who has rehearsed responses to objections that haven’t been voiced.

It’s important to see that invisible work, because then we can understand its effects on our colleagues and on our workplace. We know who is threadbare from overpreparation and we can see whose anxiety greases the axles of our teams. 

More importantly, we can see how power is distributed at work. We like to think of authority as something that’s earned based on merit. But, for some people, it’s just awarded. For others, it’s built in private, in the quiet hours where someone decides whether they can afford to risk being underprepared.

That difference is power. Until we recognize the invisible labor of being believed, we will continue to mistake anxiety for personality and armor for ambition.

/0 Comments/by

If Writing Is a Calling, Why Is It So Easy to Replace?

If you love to write, the work is its own reward, right? 

Getting paid for it is secondary. If it’s not a lot of money, that’s fine — you’re writing after all. Getting paid at all is a pleasant surprise. Anyhow, more money will follow if you’re good: if you’re talented enough, visible enough, or persistent enough.

The story we’re told about creative work is a romance. It’s heavy on the “creative” and light on the “work,” but it’s just that: a story.

The world is absolutely littered with underpaid creatives, and it’s not necessarily because they’re not trying. Some are super-talented, some are very visible, and others are doggedly persistent. 

In my experience, that last bunch is most likely to get paid, but even that isn’t certain. The most successful writers tend to be the ones who understand the business of creativity, who have connections, and those with a support system in place to help them get started. 

Writing has simply never existed outside of economics. Believing it does, however, persuades people to give away their labor while thanking the system for the privilege.

Who gets to write: a quick history

For a long time, the cost of creative work was hidden behind gatekeepers: editors, publishers, producers, institutions. Those groups (often homogeneous) decided whose work would be read. 

The result of this was that whole categories of people were told their work was niche. In publishing, this looked like putting every Black author in the African American section of the bookstore. In journalism, this looked like a monthly Women’s Voices section. Niche-ifying work sends a message: if your work is niche, it’s not expected to scale or generate capital. It exists off to the side somewhere, and you’re paid accordingly.

Then came the internet, which promised to democratize all voices. This worked, but introduced its own challenges. The gates fell…and so did the floor. Anyone could publish, but charging became more complicated. Exposure replaced pay. In many writing circles, pay seemed correlated to how enjoyable the work is. The more fun you’re having doing the work, the less you should expect to charge for it. After all, there are so many people willing to replace a pop culture writer. If you’re not making money writing on the internet, maybe you aren’t hustling hard enough. 

Now AI is here. It doesn’t burn out, it doesn’t want health insurance, it doesn’t ask inconvenient questions, and it’s inherited the biases of the systems that feed it.

Gen AI is absolutely changing the economy of writing. I see it as a freelance writer all the time. Suddenly LinkedIn is flooded with long-form posts that were clearly written by ChatGPT.  Entry-level writing gigs for content mills are becoming scarce. And most surprising to me so far: a respected content agency last year dismantled its stable of writers in favor of building an AI writing tool and offering that to its clients instead of the work of human writers.

AI and the voices of women 

While the AI-ification of writing affects writers of all genders, LLM models like ChatGPT are most likely to steal from women. How do I know? I asked. 

You know the ChatGPT cadence you’re seeing everywhere, from long LinkedIn posts to Facebook posts about adoptable pets? It’s a formula. When I asked ChatGPT which writers that cadence comes from, its answer was this: 

“That cadence does map to a demographic:

  • Educated, professional class
  • Politically left or left-adjacent, but wary of slogans
  • Often women, or men shaped by feminist critique
  • People whose power comes from competence, not charisma”

When I drilled down, ChatGPT went on to explain that its cadence is shaped by women and other marginalized groups because they “have had to argue for what is invisible without sounding aggrieved. The cadence is a survival strategy in institutions that reward calm competence and punish overt dominance.”

So there you have it. The voices most likely to be absorbed without credit by AI, are the same ones that were already underpaid and expected to be grateful for exposure. 

It’s a weird irony that ChatGPT itself values the tone of feminist work enough to copy it, while the market only cares that the work can be generated more quickly.

All of this affects who is able to write: 

  • Who can afford to keep writing when the pay drops again? 
  • Who has a safety net: a working partner or a job with benefits?
  • Who knows the editors who have the budget for human writers? 
  • Who is expected to write for love rather than for money? 

Feminism has always insisted that choice means very little if there’s no structural support. The same is true here; you can’t choose to write if the cost of choosing is insolvency.

So. What now? 

It’s not like humans are going to stop writing. Writing persists not because it is profitable, but because it is how power is named and negotiated. Whoever controls language controls legitimacy. AI can generate text, but it can’t decide what matters. 

This is where the economics may begin to shift again. 

In a flooded market, generic writing collapses in value — which is probably why entry-level content mill jobs have disappeared first. Context-rich writing will always be valuable. Writing that is embedded in lived experience, professional judgment, and ethical positioning is harder to replace, not because it is more beautiful, but because it is more expensive to fake. Feminism has long argued that situated knowledge matters and AI makes that argument unavoidable. The more automated the surface, the more valuable the depth beneath it.

Of course, this can’t resolve the payment problem on its own. Markets do not self-correct toward justice; they correct toward efficiency. If writers want to be paid, the work must be framed not as content, but as labor. We writers must all emphasize this in how we talk about our work, and  we can’t apologize for charging — even if we were socialized to apologize for everything. 

AI will continue to produce text; that isn’t the threat. The threat is a system that uses abundance as an excuse to erase the value of human judgment, especially when that judgment comes from people already trained to doubt themselves.

I don’t think the task ahead of us is to outproduce the machines. It’s never been about making more stuff. I think the task is to refuse the lie that production was ever the point. Our task is to tell the truth about what our work is worth, and insist on being paid accordingly.

/0 Comments/by

Where the Weight Lands: The Work That Keeps Things From Falling Apart

Things don’t fall apart most of the time. 

Payments are deposited into accounts when they should be. Meetings start on time. The trash is taken out. The dog is let out. The system — whatever system it is — hums along and we barely take note. 

The only time we tend to see the system is when it fails. You notice when you’re not paid. You definitely notice when the trash isn’t taken out or the dog hasn’t been let out. 

When a system stops working, it can seem weird at best, and disastrous at worst. It seems like an anomaly. 

But the truth is, a lot of invisible effort goes into keeping any system running. There’s a mouse running on a wheel that’s keeping the whole thing going. Well, not a real mouse of course. It’s a person, or a class of people. So who exactly is the mouse? And more importantly, what factors go into the decision about who will be on the hamster wheel? 

What is invisible work? 

Invisible work is often described as emotional labor or administrative burden or “extra duties as assigned” but those labels flatten what is actually happening. This work is not extra; often it is structural. Systems that seem to be stable are often held together by people who absorb their weaknesses so no one else has to feel them.

Once you start looking, you can see it everywhere.

  • At work, it’s the person who absorbs the extra work created by layoffs or understaffing. It’s the person who stays late without putting in for overtime because the work needs to get done and OT won’t get approved. It’s the person who covers shifts at the last minute not by choice but because there’s no one else to do it. In a freelance context, it’s unchecked scope creep.
  • In families, it is the person who keeps track of appointments, social obligations, and everyone else’s emotional states. This is the person who anticipates others’ needs so they don’t have to. They carry the family’s mental load, and while this load can fall on anyone, it most often falls on the women in the family. 
  • In communities, it is the volunteer who shows up every time, even when they’re exhausted, because they know no one else is coming to help them. The system functions because someone is always compensating for its blind spots.

Invisible work tends to land on the same kinds of people. Not because they are uniquely suited to it, but because they are available, conscientious, or socially trained to notice what others overlook. Sometimes it’s because they are more vulnerable than the rest of the community; the newest employee who feels like they can’t say no or the parts of a community with no voice. Often the work falls on women, or the marginalized people in a community. 

These people become reliable in the most dangerous way: their effort fades into the status quo. Everyone else just kind of assumes the work will get done. 

It feels like this work is happening on its own, but there’s always a cost. Over time it snowballs. The people responsible for invisible labor get tired, not just physically but morally. They’re carrying responsibility without control or authority. If they complain, they may get shouted down, ignored, or replaced for being “difficult.” If they shut up and put up, they burn out, the consequence of being asked to hold up a structure that refuses to acknowledge its dependence on you.

Why don’t we see invisible work? 

So why can’t we see invisible labor? And if we do, why does it keep happening? 

I can think of two explanations: 

The first one is the best-case scenario: human beings just can’t see everything. If invisible work is not our own problem, we simply don’t notice who is carrying the burden of running on the hamster wheel. Things are working. We must all be doing our part. 

The second one is more insidious: hierarchies are designed to protect themselves. The work no one else wants to do is displaced onto the people at the bottom of the pile, or onto the people who have traditionally borne that burden. When those people make noise about how much effort they’re putting in, the people at the top of the pile feel personally attacked and hit back, saying things like “sounds like you’re the problem” or “stop being lazy” or talk about their own responsibilities as if that negates the invisible work being done. 

For most systems, the answer is probably somewhere between those two scenarios.

On a systemic level, invisible labor is also durable by the fact that we don’t really value that work. At least, we don’t value it the way we value other kinds of labor. 

For example at work, metrics reward outcomes rather than maintenance. In the media, narratives celebrate disruption, not continuity. Institutions are built to notice breakdowns, not the daily work that prevents them. And many people doing invisible work have learned that naming it carries risk. So the work continues, quietly subsidizing systems that would otherwise have to confront their own limits.

The irony is that invisible work is often framed as optional, even though everything depends on it. If the trash isn’t taken out, it accumulates, creating a hazardous environment for everyone in a workplace. If Mom doesn’t swing by the store on the way home from work, there won’t be food in the house. If the few active people in your local political party don’t run for office every single election cycle, your town’s government will be controlled by the other party. 

The moment someone stops running on a hamster wheel the illusion of stability collapses, and that often causes panic and frayed relationships. The system is revealed to be frail, but once someone else gets on the hamster wheel, we often just return to the status quo and don’t think about who is keeping everything running. 

This is where the weight lands. On the people who have to notice. On the ones who care enough to compensate. And on those who have no choice.

The question is not whether this work exists. The question is what happens when the people carrying it finally jump — or fall — off the wheel.

/0 Comments/by