You know the scenario. You ask your partner to pick up groceries and they come back with three of the twelve items on your clearly written list. Or maybe it’s your roommate who’s suddenly clueless about how the washing machine works every time their turn comes around. Hell, it might even be that coworker who mysteriously can’t figure out the printer whenever there’s a big project due.

If any of this sounds familiar, congratulations – you’ve met weaponized incompetence in the wild.

This isn’t your garden-variety laziness or the kind of genuine “I really don’t know how to do this” that comes with learning something new. This is strategic helplessness: being so consistently, conveniently bad at something that other people just give up and do it themselves.

What We’re Really Talking About Here

Weaponized incompetence is using fake incompetence as a weapon to get out of doing stuff. The person knows they could figure it out — they’re just banking on the fact that you’ll get frustrated and handle it yourself.

The behavior isn’t new. Back in 1989, sociologist Arlie Hochschild wrote about the second shift — all that unpaid housework and childcare women were doing on top of their paid jobs (Hochschild & Machung, 1989). In 2007, journalist Jared Sandberg described “strategic incompetence” in The Wall Street Journal. Now the phrase has gone viral online, giving people language for what they’ve long experienced.

It’s Not Just About Dishes and Diapers

While social media often highlights straight couples where the woman ends up doing everything, the pattern is broader. Same-sex couples also report one partner carrying the “mental load.” Adult children sometimes lean on parents by feigning helplessness. And in workplaces, some colleagues mysteriously “forget” tasks they don’t enjoy while excelling at others.

The common thread isn’t gender. It’s power, convenience, and who benefits from playing dumb.

Why This Stuff Actually Matters

On the surface, it looks small. But over time, the damage is real: one partner becomes the “household CEO,” resentment builds, and lawyers report more separations tied to these dynamics than to money or infidelity. The costs add up in at least three ways:

• The mental load: one person has to plan, track, and manage the household on top of their regular job.
• The emotional toll: resentment grows when you’re constantly cleaning up after someone who’s capable but unwilling.
• The relational impact: intimacy suffers when you feel like a caretaker rather than an equal partner.

Spotting the Difference

The tricky part is telling if you’re dealing with genuine inexperience or weaponized incompetence.

• Real inexperience often involves:
  • Asking questions to understand the task,
  • Showing visible effort to do it,
  • Experimenting with different approaches when things don’t work, and
  • Improving gradually with practice.
• Weaponized incompetence, in contrast, often looks like:
  • Selective helplessness (able to manage complex hobbies but not a grocery list),
  • Repeated “forgetting” even after being shown multiple times,
  • Lack of initiative to take responsibility without reminders, and
  • No real progress no matter how much time or instruction they’ve had.

Why People Keep Getting Away With It

It works — at least in the short term. People give in because it’s easier than fighting about it. Old gender norms still push women into household manager roles. The pandemic made it worse, with women disproportionately carrying extra childcare and domestic duties. And cultural messaging from “tradwife” influencers has normalized unequal divisions of labor.

What Actually Works

Calling someone manipulative rarely helps. They’ll get defensive and dig in. What works better is focusing on the impact and setting clear boundaries. Some practical strategies include:

• Talk about impact, not intent: Instead of “You’re lazy,” try: “When you say you don’t know how, I end up handling everything, and that leaves me feeling unsupported.”
• Get specific: Don’t leave it at “We’ll share housework.” Divide tasks clearly — who does what, when, and how often.
• Set learning expectations: If someone genuinely doesn’t know how, fine — but they should improve within a reasonable timeline.
• Look for initiative: True partnership means noticing what needs to be done and acting without being asked.
• Use tools: Shared calendars, apps, or lists can help remove the excuse of “I didn’t know it needed doing.”

When It’s Time to Call It

If you’ve had the conversations, set expectations, and given plenty of time for change but still find yourself carrying the entire load, it may be time to reconsider whether this relationship is serving you. More and more people — especially women — are choosing independence over the exhaustion of managing two people’s lives.

This doesn’t mean dumping anyone who struggles with chores. But if someone consistently refuses to step up despite being capable, it shows you where their priorities — and respect for your time — truly lie.

The Bottom Line

Weaponized incompetence isn’t just a buzzword. It’s a damaging relationship pattern that breeds resentment and burnout. The good news: once you can name it, you can start addressing it. Some people will change once they realize the impact. Others won’t — and that tells you all you need to know.

Healthy partnerships are built on mutual respect and shared responsibility. People who value equality will figure it out. Those who don’t? They can figure out their own laundry.

✨ At UnderneathTheMoon, we help individuals and couples break free from dynamics like weaponized incompetence and build balanced, supportive relationships.

👉 If you’re ready to reset your relationship dynamics and lighten your load, book a session with us today.

References

1. Daminger, A. (2019). The cognitive dimension of household labor. American Sociological Review, 84(4), 609–633. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122419859007
2. Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (1989). The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home. Viking.
3. Sandberg, J. (2007, April 24). The art of strategic incompetence. The Wall Street Journal.https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB117737848372806197