Update, via the comments:
As so often with Laurie and her peers, it’s not entirely clear whether this is what she actually believes or it’s just something she feels obliged to say for effect, to appear cleverly non-conformist, and thereby conform with the expectations of her leftist peer group. Though I suppose the level of sincerity barely matters. In either case, she would have to be a fool. Still, you have to marvel at the insistence that one of the most basic and universal of human feelings is merely an elaborate ruse “designed” by some unspecified patriarchal cabal. And you have to wonder how this “systemic lie” might explain the romantic feelings of gay couples.
Dark conspiracies aside, what stands out for me is Laurie’s ostentatious use of the phrase “emotional labour” – a term that generally refers to employees being polite to customers and not having tantrums and meltdowns in the workplace. (One might substitute the word professionalism, but hey.) She implies that this kind of emotional self-possession is not only a form of gendered drudgery, imposed by men, but is also the basis of a loving – sorry, “loving” - relationship. Though this doesn’t remotely match any actual marriage I’m aware of. I was under the impression that one of the benefits of a lifelong loving relationship is that the occasional foul mood can be aired, accommodated and ultimately forgiven precisely because the other person loves you.
But again, I’m not convinced that Laurie actually believes any of the bollocks she mouths. Her pronouncements are reliably dissonant with her own behaviour, which suggests an instinctive hypocrisy on almost every issue she brings up. To take an obvious example, one of many, are we to believe that Laurie is deeply concerned by the “emotional labour” of polite male security staff – the ones who get randomly abused by Laurie’s sister, whom she then congratulates for her radicalism? Or does the “emotional labour” of polite men not count?