In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

The feminists were right

Jill

Socialized gender differences are bad for marriage:

Notably, same-sex relationships, whether between men or women, were far more egalitarian than heterosexual ones. In heterosexual couples, women did far more of the housework; men were more likely to have the financial responsibility; and men were more likely to initiate sex, while women were more likely to refuse it or to start a conversation about problems in the relationship. With same-sex couples, of course, none of these dichotomies were possible, and the partners tended to share the burdens far more equally.

While the gay and lesbian couples had about the same rate of conflict as the heterosexual ones, they appeared to have more relationship satisfaction, suggesting that the inequality of opposite-sex relationships can take a toll.

“Heterosexual married women live with a lot of anger about having to do the tasks not only in the house but in the relationship,” said Esther D. Rothblum, a professor of women’s studies at San Diego State University. “That’s very different than what same-sex couples and heterosexual men live with.”

But there is hope — it just requires dropping gender-essentialist ideas:

The findings suggest that heterosexual couples need to work harder to seek perspective. The ability to see the other person’s point of view appears to be more automatic in same-sex couples, but research shows that heterosexuals who can relate to their partner’s concerns and who are skilled at defusing arguments also have stronger relationships.

One of the most common stereotypes in heterosexual marriages is the “demand-withdraw” interaction, in which the woman tends to be unhappy and to make demands for change, while the man reacts by withdrawing from the conflict. But some surprising new research shows that same-sex couples also exhibit the pattern, contradicting the notion that the behavior is rooted in gender, according to an abstract presented at the 2006 meeting of the Association for Psychological Science by Sarah R. Holley, a psychology researcher at Berkeley.

Dr. Levenson says this is good news for all couples.

“Like everybody else, I thought this was male behavior and female behavior, but it’s not,” he said. “That means there is a lot more hope that you can do something about it.”

48 thoughts on The feminists were right

  2. I nearly cackled out-loud when I saw this on the NYT website–finally, some hard evidence of the dynamic described by every single person I know who’s had both straight and queer relationships.

    Without gender stereotypes to fall back on, same-gender couples are forced to–gasp!–come up with their own divisions of labor and relationship roles that work for them as individuals. Such a shock that decisions made based on individual strengths, weaknesses, and preferences work better than ones made because it’s always been done that way. Not to say that het relationships can’t be egalitarian, but even if all parties are committed to equality it’s an uphill battle against entrenched assumptions and the roles society enforces.

  3. I love this topic.

    I would posit that the egalitarian dynamic is not only due to the emotional relationship for same-gender couples and hetero couples who don’t adopt societally determined gender roles, but is also due to the economic relationship between the parties.

    What do others think about this?

  4. In Bonk Mary Roach (reporting on an obscure piece of Masters and Johnson’s work) says that this extends to sex as well, and that homosexual couples have better sex because they have more empathy for their partner. I’m condensing, but it’s the same idea–taking out all the social BS makes things better.

  5. I would posit that the egalitarian dynamic is not only due to the emotional relationship for same-gender couples and hetero couples who don’t adopt societally determined gender roles, but is also due to the economic relationship between the parties.

    I agree. I would posit that a same-sex relationship where one partner holds a disproportionate amount of the money could indeed lead to a non-egalitarian dynamic just as that is also true in heterosexual couples.
    The difference, of course is that the non-egalitarian roles of heterosexual couplings is societally and religiously mandated.
    I read the article this morning, and I remember being struck – like E – with a sense of, “Well, DUH.”

  6. “Heterosexual married women live with a lot of anger about having to do the tasks not only in the house but in the relationship,”

    I think I am fortunate that personal life does not include men like this. If I did, they would start whining at me about their so-called “problems” and expecting me to commiserate as a fellow married het. Then I would say something that would get me punched in the face. Like, say, “Dude, seriously? Get over it! Your mommy isn’t here to wipe your nose. You’re a big boy now.”

    I got the same reaction from whiners about affirmative action.

  7. It’s kind of sad that it takes more widespread visibility of same-sex couples for people to realize this. I mean, a lot of heterosexual couples realized this kind of thing a long time ago — that gender stereotypes are basically bullshit when it comes to individuals (and largely when it comes to populations!) and therefore are no substitute for engaging with each other AS individuals. With differences between partners to be sure, but not differences that you can simply chalk up to gender every time.

    Now we just need some studies correlating exactly what Esteleth and octo suggest — greater inequality in income, decision-making, control alongside relationship satisfaction and ability to communicate etc. Gee maybe they’ll eventually be able to advance a hypothesis that most good relationships are quite egalitarian? Gasp. Gasp, I say.

    I also love this piece because it more or less proves that having gay couples around, and comparing and contrasting with straight couples, actually BENEFITS and IMPROVES institutions like marriage. Tangible evidence! When nobody, not even Bill O’Reilly or other right-wing carpers, have been able to produce any real reason why gay families and unions hurt straight marriages, other than some waffling about semantics and the meaning of things changing in ways that make them uncomfy. Vive la difference.

  8. but even if all parties are committed to equality it’s an uphill battle against entrenched assumptions and the roles society enforces

    Amen.

  10. I would posit that the egalitarian dynamic is not only due to the emotional relationship for same-gender couples and hetero couples who don’t adopt societally determined gender roles, but is also due to the economic relationship between the parties.

    Octogalore, I totally agree with this. My partner and I are generally less-than-stellar “examples” of our genders, but the simple fact that he makes way more money than me (he works full-time in IT, I work part-time in coffee) still means that I’m the one home, homemaking. And it’s actually not so bad, except for the boredom, which I’m trying to learn to cherish before the baby arrives. 😛

  11. Pingback: the feminists were - well. « Sara Speaking

  12. but even if all parties are committed to equality it’s an uphill battle against entrenched assumptions and the roles society enforces

    Amen.

    Double Amen.

    There are some members of my family that act like it’s the end of the world because I’m going to *gasp* keep my fulfilling and well-paying job after I get married in three weeks . . . . And some think the biggest issue is that I’ll be the “breadwinner,” at least for awhile, because my fiancé just finished his B.A. and currently taking minimum-wage-temp-jobs (while looking for something more stable), whereas I have a graduate degree and a career-type job. ohnoez! I actually have a higher degree and a better job that required I get that degree! Shame on me!

    No, I don’t want to be the breadwinner forever (precisely because I want us to have an egalitarian relationship and I am concerned that one partner supporting the other in the long term might jeopardize that), but it’s not really a big deal right now. But geez. I can’t believe that my relatives think it’s all doom and gloom.

  13. Another voice agreeing with Octagalore. It’s not just about power and independence; I think it’s also about empathy. The article said that same-sex couples seem to show more empathy for each other, and I think that’s a core component of a healthy relationship. When both parties have lives that look similar – some amount of paid work, some amount of child care, some amount of housework – they’re more likely to empathize with each other. If one is home and the other out working, it’s easier to fall into a “you-have-it-so-easy” resentment on both sides. I’ve seen that in lesbian and gay couples as well if one is home with the kids and the other is working full-time.

  14. I also love this piece because it more or less proves that having gay couples around, and comparing and contrasting with straight couples, actually BENEFITS and IMPROVES institutions like marriage. Tangible evidence! When nobody, not even Bill O’Reilly or other right-wing carpers, have been able to produce any real reason why gay families and unions hurt straight marriages, other than some waffling about semantics and the meaning of things changing in ways that make them uncomfy. Vive la difference.

    IMO, this IS precisely who so many religious extremists and social conservatives want to make marriage exclusive to hetero couples who meet their arbitrary standards. If non-hetero marriages become commonplace and accepted, it may expose the underlying sham of what they consider an ideal marriage as it is practiced by many…especially in their own communities.

  15. The article is great but this

    “Like everybody else, I thought this was male behavior and female behavior, but it’s not,” he said. “That means there is a lot more hope that you can do something about it.”

    really caught my eye. No, *everyone* doesn’t think this. While he gets credit for rethinking his prejudice it’s kind of interesting that he’s clear he had a preconcieved notion going into it.

  16. I agree, exholt. Social conservatives, even the ones who wouldn’t explicitly tell a woman to shut up and get back into the kitchen, tend to buy into an essentialist view of gender. They want men to be macho and stoic and women to be domestic and emotional. They don’t want the gender differences to erode. Even if that would make interactions between men and women in heterosexual relationships easier.

  17. In heterosexual couples, women did far more of the housework; men were more likely to have the financial responsibility;

    The dynamic I am interested in is in those households where the women bear the financial burden and the men bear the domestic burdens of housekeeping and child care. My bet is over time women, particularly those with children, will grow weary of bearing the financial burden and yearn for the comfort and security of being financially provided for while bearing the burden of childcare and domestic responsibilities. The study completely omits the additional burdens of child rearing the responsibilty of which is rare in same sex couples.

  18. re: octagalore:

    I would posit that the egalitarian dynamic is not only due to the emotional relationship for same-gender couples and hetero couples who don’t adopt societally determined gender roles, but is also due to the economic relationship between the parties.

    What do others think about this?

    Yes, I think economics is so important. Not to mention how economics is conceptualized (“what counts”). My research shows that it is both. Ironically I’m almost done with my Master’s Thesis very close to this very topic. Deply and Leonard have a terrific book Familial Exploitations which is a materialist (Marxist) analysis of economic relations in the family that was very influential in my Thesis. One of my arguments/conclusions is that marriage is regulated, disciplined, and produced in mush more than marriage law…

    Anyway, several studies I read revealed that income parity or even with women earning more than men when both partners are full-time workers gives women some relief in housework but not proportionally by any means. Women in relationships where they earned more than their male partners also tended to defer decisions and power to them for fear that b/c of their higher income and status jobs they may appear too threatening to their spouses. We know that traditionally, men’s jobs have been used for justification for them doing less housework and having more power within the family. but a “role reversal” in income doesn’t produce a “role reversal” in behavior. Which makes me think it’s both gender AND economic.

    One more interesting point was that in families where men are almost totally economically dependent on women, they tend to do less work than when spouses’ income is equal…the researcher Brines (1994) took this to be a “gender display”-as normative gender roles in the family income-wise are deviated from, their other behaviors tend to be overly gendered.

    All this to say, I suggest gender, economics, and the family are intertwined. In other words, economics (including home economics) must be understood through gender and part of gender’s production is through economics–the idea of public/private, what counts as civic particiaption, etc.

    Sorry this is kind of long, but this is so fascinating in light of the research and writing I’m (almost done!) doing.

    (if anyone wants reference, I can provide)

    If anyone’s interested in some of what I’ve written on my blog about gender and marriage, see Thoughts on the Tyrrany of Marriage at Tax Time

    Also, like queernation, I too am skeptical of the results of this study (which I also argue in my thesis). Our society support so few “family” options, and provides very little if any support for non-marriage-like relationships, that while I think that same-sex couples aren’t as “unequal”, I have a hard time believing that same-sex couples don’t evidence is any way the effects of constrictive heteronormativity.

  19. Pingback: Time article on gender, marriage and same-sex couples « don’t ya wish your girlfriend was smart like me?

  20. Esteleth – yes, good point, the non-egalitarian roles of hetero couples are mandated and harder to deconstruct.

    Holly – I don’t know if studies of the kind you mentioned exist (“correlating exactly what Esteleth and octo suggest — greater inequality in income, decision-making, control alongside relationship satisfaction and ability to communicate etc.”), but I’d love to check them out if so!

    One reason it would be hard to tell is that you cannot tell by looking at divorces. Because women with more income and leverage might be less dependent on staying in unhappy marriages and more likely to divorce, without necessarily being less happy.

    I definitely think gay couples are a good model. And it’s not that everything needs to be even, but I do think that an increase in emotional evenness is only half the battle. There’s something to be said for equity in the way it’s valued in our sordid capitalist means of exchange. Not that this has to be observed religiously or anything.

    Sara no h: yes, I totally agree. Sometimes a simple circumstance like that, even with an egalitarian-minded feminist male partner, can lead to the other being in a caretaking/homemaking role. Not that this is a bad thing. It’s just not tenure track, if you know what I mean – less guaranteed security. The outside-world partner can always increase the time at home, but it is harder for the inside-home partner to explain the resume gaps.

    I think this is the guy’s responsibility too, though. Even if the female partner of a hetero couple makes less income, I don’t think that makes her ability to grow in her career less important, or that it makes his ability to play a role in childcare less important for him.

    Speaking of which, Sara no h, congratulations on the imminent arrival!

    Earlgreyrooibos: kudos! Why SHOULDN’T you keep your fulfilling, well-paying job? Many of us have to settle for one out of two (or less). You are absolutely doing the right thing. I outearn my husband by multiples, but we still have an egalitarian relationship. I don’t agree that the woman cannot be the breadwinner and still have one of those. If you want to email me and talk further about it, let me know.

    Jay – I agree, re the resentment. Two of my partners are guys who compelled their wives to quit their jobs, and now secretly resent their lives of comparative leisure now that their kids are in school full-time. I’m sure their wives resent their workaholism etc., too.

    Lindabeth – I’d love to read your Thesis. I will check out your link. I agree re “even with women earning more than men when both partners are full-time workers gives women some relief in housework but not proportionally by any means. Women in relationships where they earned more than their male partners also tended to defer decisions and power to them for fear that b/c of their higher income and status jobs they may appear too threatening to their spouses.”

    I don’t think it’s inevitable, though. And I wonder about these things:
    1) Will this gradually become less of an issue if women earning more becomes more common?
    2) How much of the deference is because the man actually is threatened and how much is because the woman thinks he will be?
    3) How much of the lack of proportional relief in housework is because of male refusal and how much is because of female guilt? eg I have more guilt about neglecting my daughter while at work than my husband does, which can lead to my taking too much on even if he would have otherwise done it.

  21. The dynamic I am interested in is in those households where the women bear the financial burden and the men bear the domestic burdens of housekeeping and child care. My bet is over time women, particularly those with children, will grow weary of bearing the financial burden and yearn for the comfort and security of being financially provided for while bearing the burden of childcare and domestic responsibilities.

    Or women may be happy in their work and proud to provide for their family. Being dependent on your partner financially does not necessarily provide comfort and security. I plan to work throughout my life even after having children. If I didn’t, I would constantly worry about something happening to my spouse (death, disability, job loss, etc) and the financial trouble we’d be in if I sat out of the workforce for too long. That would not be “comforting”.

    The study completely omits the additional burdens of child rearing the responsibilty of which is rare in same sex couples.

    I’m sure there are plenty of same sex couples with children who would beg to differ.

  22. So many interesting points!

    Holly – “I also love this piece because it more or less proves that having gay couples around, and comparing and contrasting with straight couples, actually BENEFITS and IMPROVES institutions like marriage.”

    Yes! And THAT is one reason why social conservatives are so scared of gay marriage. They can’t conceive of a relationship that’s not based on pre-set dominant/submissive roles. They don’t WANT straight relationships to be egalitarian. They don’t WANT straight couples to stray from the patriarchal model.

    E – I totally feel you on your last point. I love my relationship because neither my boyfriend nor I are interested in performing stereotypical masculine/feminine roles just because he’s a man and I’m a woman. But that really confuses some people, and it’s a pain in the ass to deal with their skepticism and disapproval.
    I was speaking with my mom on the phone the other day, telling her about my weekend, which included dinner with my boyf and two friends. She asked if it was an expensive place; I told her it was reasonable, and that my portion was about $30 total.
    “Oh. You paid for yourself?”
    “Uh, yeah, why?”
    “I don’t know… (I can FEEL the judgement coming from her end) Do you always do that?”
    “No mom. Sometimes we each pay for ourselves and other times we treat each other.”
    “Hmph.”

    The only downside to an egalitarian relationship that doesn’t revolve around gender roles is the stink eye you get from society.

  23. Like most of you, I too find this concept fascinating. My interest is not only of the general tacit but of a personal nature as well. I have had long term relationships with men and women, and can say from personal experience that economic status definitely defines household roles. I do agree that same-sex relationships have a greater likelihood of equality b/c you do have to make your own rules, but ultimately there is still a tendency towards one person bearing the household load when large economic division exists between partners.

    I am in total agreement with statements made by LindaBeth about the dynamics of hetero-couples where the woman is the bread winner. Many men are fine with having a woman who takes on the provider role, but you have to remember the what society at large thinks about this. I have found that men who start out ok with the whole idea of their female counterpart making more can be worn down by the opinions of others around them. Society needs to change its outlook; ladies don’t defer to your man- talk with him about issues that involve him or when you want a sounding board, not b/c you are worried about his ego. Both men and women need to accomodate the changing dynamics: ladies stop pussy-footing, men self-esteem comes from competency not more zeros on the paystub.

  24. earlgreyrooibos, my wife and I are in a similar situation. We both work, but, at the moment, my job allows me to work from home most of the time, so I do the bulk of the cooking, cleaning, household errands, etc. Not being well-disposed to office life, I like this arrangement just fine. When the situation was reversed for a while last year, when I was was away working a lot and my wife was between jobs, she nearly went stir-crazy hanging around the house. If we did things in the traditional fashion, we’d both be stuck in routines we hate.

    I think straight couples can learn a lot from same-sex couples, but I can also see how, even if a couple has an egalitarian relationship at one point, changes like having children, changes in careers, finances, social environment, etc, could provide opportunities for sexist dynamics to reassert themselves. It will be interesting to see how relatively young egalitarian relationships develop long-term.

  25. Sara no h: yes, I totally agree. Sometimes a simple circumstance like that, even with an egalitarian-minded feminist male partner, can lead to the other being in a caretaking/homemaking role. Not that this is a bad thing. It’s just not tenure track, if you know what I mean – less guaranteed security. The outside-world partner can always increase the time at home, but it is harder for the inside-home partner to explain the resume gaps.

    *nods* It’s like that comic Amp has, demonstrating how having even a little lead eventually leads to a great big gap that’s insurmountable by the time one gets around to trying to fix it. Opportunity builds on itself and it’s a lot harder to get your foot in the door once you’ve let it shut.

    I think this is the guy’s responsibility too, though. Even if the female partner of a hetero couple makes less income, I don’t think that makes her ability to grow in her career less important, or that it makes his ability to play a role in childcare less important for him.

    Agreed, agreed. And that’s where having a pro-feminist male partner comes in handy, because he gets that career growth is just as important for me as childcare is for him, even though that may not reflect where we are now.

    Speaking of which, Sara no h, congratulations on the imminent arrival!

    Thanks :3

  26. What works in a relationship is what works for the people involved. I don’t buy the ‘key to happiness’ from liberals or conservatives.

  27. Paige: “I have found that men who start out ok with the whole idea of their female counterpart making more can be worn down by the opinions of others around them.”

    Yup. Guys get the issue of self-interest though. I’ve found that sometimes my husband has issues like this. In our case, his job title sounds much more important and elite than mine. So his friends ask me questions like “so, you’re part time right?” and “you’re home with your daughter most of the time, right?” And he doesn’t correct them as much as he should, but lately I’ve seen a difference in this regard.

    But there’s a limit, I think, to how much their friends or society in general can really influence them, because of the self-interest thing. It seems like the workday has expanded in a lot of fields, and anyone who’s not a workaholic or perfectionist is sick of that. With two incomes, both people have a chance to spend more family time, work out, whatever. If someone gets cracks about the wife wearing the pants or something typically juvenile, he has the ability to remind the joker that he too would happily wear a dress if he had more time to live life. Well, maybe not in those words…

  28. “Like everybody else, I thought this was male behavior and female behavior, but it’s not,” he said. “That means there is a lot more hope that you can do something about it.”

    This quote caught my eye, not because he was pointing out that he came into the study with pre-disposednotions, but that he STILL thinks there are behaviors inherent to the sexes that cannot be changed.

  29. I know that in my relationship I quickly developed resentment over tasks being given to me because they were just too hard for a man to do. As if I was born knowing how to cook. I bought him two cook books and told him to fend for himself. I presumed that equality would come naturally but old messages die hard and when someone has seen their mother do nothing but raise children, cook, and clean it’s hard to believe that these things aren’t women’s jobs but enforced roles.

  30. “The only downside to an egalitarian relationship that doesn’t revolve around gender roles is the stink eye you get from society.”

    Oh how true this is! I didn’t change my last name, we don’t have a joint checking account and will usually split the costs of meals. My married sister thinks this is crazy and keeps asking when we are going to combine accounts. My mother is shocked that he does his own laundry. Co-workers have said “no joint accounts, no name change – why did you get married? Its like you are roommates.” Uh, no its completely different and its odd that’s how someone would define “marriage.

    I try to explain that this arrangement works for us and in the case of checking accounts is easier – we split up the bills fairly and don’t have to constantly check w/each other on personal expenses. He makes more but I have better credit so I qualify for the better financing and interest rates. The house, his car, all our big purchases are in my name and he’s listed as an authorized signer. I let him know when bills are due but its up to him to actually schedule the payment. I see how my sister feels like she’s taken for granted by her husband in all she does for the household, and I also see that since she likes to shop a lot and her husband has a better income he considers all the extra work she does as “her job.” I see how they both buy into traditional gender roles in their marriage and the screaming knock-out fights they have. Yet its my marriage that is the “weird” one…

  31. It’s funny – when my partner saw this article on the NY Times website and read the headline to me, we both scoffed. Now, the article itself isn’t so bad, but I do think it’s a little simplistic. I know that folks here aren’t saying this, but I think the article doesn’t move too far away from “OMG, they’re egalitarian because they are the SAME!” which is pretty reductionist.

    My partner and I are both Latina, both female-assigned and both identify as women to varying degrees. She is definitely more feminine than me and grew up with stronger female gendered socialization than I did. She had to perform femininity way more than I did in a household chores and relation to men sense; I, on the other hand, had to wear dresses now and then but was a fairly spoiled bratty only child who never had to learn to cook or even clean much. In our relationship, she’s definitely the more feminine one, and I think all of this plays out in how we approach our household chores and responsibilities. I do think we’re more conscious of the gender dynamics and strive to be actively and deliberately egalitarian, but our gender differences definitely play out every once in a while. For instance, I’ll be sitting around playing video games and not worrying too much about the mess building up in the house, while she’ll be cleaning something because she feels like someone has to do it and since I’m not, it comes down to her. The gender difference isn’t spoken or enforced – it’s not like I tell her to do stuff or actively expect her to – but it’s there and I think it definitely has to do with my position as the more masculine person in the relationship.

    This is all to say that just because people are in a same-sex relationship doesn’t mean they’re in a same-gender relationship, and sometimes the same old patriarchal b.s. bubbles up to the surface. True, maybe less often, less strong, less problematic in the long run, but still there. And this isn’t even getting to class and economic differences (like folks have pointed to already) as well as differences in race. We queers don’t just get to rest on our equitable laurels; we too need to be vigilant about how gender and other privilege plays out in our relationships and call ourselves on it when it does.

  32. Jack, absolutely. I too think the article was guilty of treating sex and gender as the same thing and of ignoring the gendered dynamics and inequalities that occur in queer relationships. I’m a feminine lesbian and my experiences dealing with other queer women and men are definitely gendered differently than my butcher friends. But anyway, at least it was good press.

  33. Jack and Melissa- kudos. Gender and sex are different. Sex refers only to the pieces and parts. I am ultra feminine in appearence and behavior within social interactions, but I tend to take the more “masculine” role in terms of money, career path and decision making. I am with someone who could easy pass as a man at first glance, but carries out many of the traditional “feminine” roles in our relationship. Gender is not tangible, it is a concept used as a control in society….how two people fit together is much more important than gender associations or assumptions.

  34. Just to sort of echo/add to Jack and Melissa Mad.’s comments, I was also immediately pretty turned off by conflation of sex and gender in this article, and in and some of the discussions it’s sparked. Since we’re all good, dedicated feminists, it should be a no-brainer to us that a same sex relationship is not the same thing as a same gender relationship, right? Which is why i was a little surprised that the heading of this post reads “gender differences are bad for marriages” (well it says “socialized gender” differences but of course that’s a little redundant if you want to get technical about it). Because nobody here actually thinks that having gender difference in a relationship is a bad thing per se, right? (Otherwise we would all be aspiring to pair up with people whose gender expression perfectly matched our own and that would be pretty weird.) I think it’s a big leap from “*inequality* can be bad for/create challenges for relationships” (as has been further discussed by many in the comments) to “*gender difference* is bad for relationships.” I’m probably not an ideal example since I’m a dude now (whether or not my current relationship counts as same-sex sort of depends on who you ask), but having spent a good chunk of my adult life as a butch-identified lesbian who dated femme-identified queer women, I kind of bristle at the suggestion that gender difference–even gender roles (the language used by the feministing post on this article)–in a relationship is an inherent problem. I’m pointing this out not just for the sake of playing semantics, but because I worry the conversation comes dangerously close to lapsing into homonormative, butch/femme-phobic and trans-phobic rhetoric that criminalizes non-normatively gendered queer people simply for their performance of gender roles. Which of course, gay communities and movements have a pretty established history of doing.

    But like I mentioned already, of course I have no compunction with condemning inequality in relationships. Like Jack, as a masculine person–and in my case particularly as a masculine person who has begun to accrue certain male privileges as I have started going through the world as a man–I struggle a great deal with the ways in which my male/masculine privilege can foster inequality my relationship (I also struggle with my class privilege and, in the past, with my race privilege in relation to my partners). I do, however, think that it behooves progressive feminist and queer people to be able to be able to think about gender difference and gender privilege in nuanced ways, and to be able to differentiate between the two when applicable.

  36. Another article from the NYT looks at the issue of equality in relationships in terms of parenting. It’ll be in the magazine this weekend, but it’s on the website already. Lesbian couples start to get talked about in the middle of page 8.

  38. I plan to work throughout my life even after having children.

    Olivia–that’s nice that you “plan” to do that. Lots of women have planned to do that too, only to find separation from their baby more stressful that they could bear and elected to stay out of the work force until the child is in preschool at least(3 years). Of course, returning to the workforce after such an absence one cannot reasonably expect to return to a level commensurate with those who remained working and such individuals may find themselves earning less and not at the same level as male contemporaries because the men have stayed in the work force. In those instances where the father has taken a hiatus from work and commensurately suffered career set backs, there is a plethora of popular literature about the resentment harbored by the primary breadwinning wives of such men.

  39. Enlightened, I say this as gently as possible: Come down off the hobby horse. Not everyone has the same experience as you. Not everyone has the same marriage you had. Being unhappily married and getting divorced sucks, but it is not the lot of every working woman. Not every woman is your ex-wife. Not every man is you. I am genuinely not trying to be mean right now, but this is not the place to grind your very personal axe working women.

  40. Jill: You said it better than I could.

    Enlightened: Since you know fuck all about me, you would do well to remove the quotes “plan” to work. You would also benefit from remembering not all women are the same. Not all mothers are happy to stay home, not all mothers are happy to work. As it stands my family is dependent on me working. I have no doubt I will miss my babies when I return to work, but such is life. I will work thru it as my mother, grandmother and millions of other women have content in knowing I will be doing my best for my children and family.

  41. One of the most common stereotypes in heterosexual marriages is the “demand-withdraw” interaction, in which the woman tends to be unhappy and to make demands for change, while the man reacts by withdrawing from the conflict.

    We had something like this in my marriage. Except that we evidently hadn’t read the rule book on Gender Roles properly, because I was the one that wanted the change and that insisted we go to a marriage counselor (on and off for over 10 years), and it was my (now ex-) wife kept insisting that nothing was wrong and that the only problem was that I wasn’t satisfied with a good marriage. I was the one who wanted more honesty and intimacy, and she was the one who just wanted to do her stuff and “have sex” on demand. And I’ve run across quite a few men in similar situations. My situation may be less common than the reverse, but it does happen both ways.

    I believe that most of these male/female stereotypes and “rules” are actually untrue a lot of the time (I remember something called the 1/3 — 2/3 rule), but most people ignore the cases when the rule is wrong and only remember the cases when it is right.

    That includes “scientific” researchers and people who report on research — every time they are confronted with evidence that their preconceived ideas are wrong, they act like they’ve just seen a two-headed chicken. They run around saying how astonished they are, but by the next day, they’re back to thinking these stereotypes are 100% true all the time. Until the next time they’re confronted with contrary evidence. Ad infinitem.

    But then, as I’ve started saying on an almost daily basis (I live in the NYC area), what can you expect from the New York Times?

  42. I read an article in Ming Pao the other day, that lots of women in China are doing what I had planned to do before I had concluded that I’ll be happier tying the tubes; having children during their university years. While one can study better without caring for a baby, it is easier to mix babies and education than it would be to mix babies and a career. A lot of women applying for jobs after grad finds themselves being asked about their future plans of marriage and motherhood, and those who already ‘got it over with’ are hired more.

    The above can’t be quite applied everywhere though. Free love has always existed in Chinese culture, but the majority view is still that you marry the one most practically suited, and then grow to love one another. For those who wants to shop around One True, the marry in uni model don’t apply. It also don’t apply to people who wants more than one child. I think it’s a great idea though, for those who do want ONE child, and have a childhood /bestfriend/ to have the child with, with an agreement that they will be friends and co-parents forever, but both can look for exciting and volatile /romantic/ love elsewhere.

  43. As it stands my family is dependent on me working. I have no doubt I will miss my babies when I return to work, but such is life. I will work thru it as my mother, grandmother and millions of other women have content in knowing I will be doing my best for my children and family.

    Olivia, kudos. You and Jill make a good point about reading in, incorrectly, to others’ statements.

    If you plan to continue working, you will continue working. You will make it work. You hopefully will be smarter than I was and take more than six weeks off (I had a preemie to boot), but you and not random voices on the internet have the ability to execute on your plans. Not only did “enlightened” demonstrate rather unenlightened views about privilege, as many women do not have the choice to stop working, but it’s perfectly legit to continue working for the same reasons men do after having children.

    There are studies that kids with working parents (including working mom) do just as well as those with one SAHP. Spending time is important for sure, and making time during the week can be managed and shared by spouses. Presenting a model to a child (especially a girl) of a woman who is as involved in the grownup/working world as a man, is also a positive thing.

    One story I heard just this week stuck with me. One of my partners is an acknowledged workaholic. Luckily he’s in a field where he is top dog and has control over cutting back, and has doing that, but just started recently. His wife is a SAHM, formerly a top real estate broker before they had their one child, a boy. She spends signficant time with her son, helping him at school, with projects, with sports, etc. The boy had to do a school assignment about “My Hero(ine).” At this point Dad had been spending limited time while Mom was doing everything. So the paper was about My Mom, right? Wrong.

    That doesn’t mean it’s not worthwhile to be a full-time parent or that there is any right or wrong — just that, there isn’t any right or wrong. Whatever you do, it will be the right thing.

  44. Jill and Olivia: You are absolutely right, not all women would prefer to stay home, just most. But, if you elect to work and your husband takes the hiatus from work to care for children and suffers career set back to the extent that it places you in the roll of primary breadwinner for the remainder of your marriage (presumably that would be for life) you have no right to complain about bearing the burden of primary breadwinner because that is what you elected to do and you must assume the responsibility accordingly. It sickens me to hear women complain when they find themselves bearing the burden of primary breadwinner when it was choices they made, accommodated by their feminist husbands that placed them there.

    Now that I am in the midst of divorce I am now seeking primary physical custody of my children and seeking to relocate them with me to our former state of residence, because that is where I am most likely to rekindle my career and since I have been the primary caregiver to my kids for all their lives my wife’s choices are coming back to haunt her. No not all women are like my wife, but be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it.

  45. be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it.

    With all it unintended consequences.

  46. Jill, I have nothing against working women. In my view women as primary caregivers and secondary earners is an ideal role for most wives. The problem arises when women push for the primary breadwinner role leaving their husbands in a primary caregiver/secondary earner role only later to discover that the primary breadwinner is a burden they would rather not bear and then they grow resentful of their husbands because their husband is not able to step into the primary breadwinner role without the family suffering significant loss in their standard of living.

  47. Pingback: The division of feminism and economics « economic woman
  48. Pingback: Eloping in one week! « A Feminist Wife

Comments are currently closed.