Couples, Gender, and Power
Creating Change in Intimate Relationships
1: Gender Equality in Intimate Relationships
Becky and Tom sat huddled together on Carmen’s green couch. They had been married just over a year and had an infant son. At considerable sacrifice to them both, Becky had dropped out of school to care for the baby while Tom worked full time and went to school. As they held hands, the tears streamed from Becky’s eyes: “I don’t think you love me anymore; you never listen to me.” Carmen turned to Tom: “Becky says you don’t listen to her.” “I do,” he says; “when I think it’s important.”
In Singapore a wife says that cooking dinner is her responsibility, then later backs off, explaining that if there is a rush job at work she has to stay to finish it. “I can’t leave work early just to come home and cook,” she argues. A male physician from Cuba takes a less powerful family role when he and his family seek refuge in the United States. An Anglo father in the United States says that he wants to be more involved in caring for his children, but describes a work schedule that makes it “impossible.” A Black couple in the United States shares most household tasks, but the wife wakes her husband to fill the car with gas, because that is “a man’s job.”
Relationship vignettes like the ones just described are common. People are often hurt and frustrated by their partners, but don’t know why. The research presented here suggests that part of the problem is that partners think they are equal, yet old gender disparities continue to structure their interactions, creating barriers to equality despite the couple’s best intentions. How can clinicians and educators help clients with these conflicts and work with couples to create the kinds of relationships they want? In this chapter we describe the current trends toward greater gender equality in couple relationships, what keeps old patterns of gendered power alive, and why equality is so important for successful relationships. We end with the presentation of our model of relationship equality, which underlies the studies included in this collection.
Trends Toward Gender Equality
The trend toward egalitarian ideals is evident everywhere in the industrialized world (Sullivan, 2006). In the Western world and even in cultures built around extended families, the individual couple increasingly stands at the core of family life; partners are expected to engage in emotional communication and intimacy. This is new. Marriage has rarely been based on intimacy in the past (Giddens, 1999). Intimacy, asweuse it here, involves sustained mutual psychological openness and vulnerability—states difficult to maintain unless partners hold equal status (Horst & Doherty, 1995). Equality is becoming a prerequisite for successful contemporary relationships.
Although the movement toward gender equality in relationships is not as rapid as early advocates originally hoped, recent research suggests that change, at least in the sharing of family work, has been continuous and significant, not just in young couples who entered their relationships with more flexible ideas about gender, but also among older couples in which the wives have been in the workforce for some time (Sullivan, 2006). There appears to be a growing convergence in the hours that men and women in the United States spend in the broad categories of paid work, family work, and leisure (Fisher, Egerton, Gershuny, & Robinson, 2006; Lang & Risman, 2006). Data from 20 industrialized countries from 1965 to 2003 show an overall cross-country increase in men’s proportional contribution to family work from less than one fifth to more than a third (Hook, 2006).
The convergence between what men and women do and want is a force for equality. Coontz (2005) notes, “Over the past century, marriage has steadily become more fair, more fulfilling, and more effective in fostering the well-being of both adults and children” (p. 301). Paradoxically, this convergence brings its own set of concerns. Couple relationships are now more personal and more fragile. Individuals pick and choose the kind of relationships they want. Most women are no longer willing to stay in unequal relationships and most men no longer want a weaker, subservient partner (Coontz). Couples set their standards for marital success high and then have trouble living up to their own ideals. Their potential for failure is also aggravated by social contextual pressures over which they have little control.
Old Cultural Patterns Keep Inequality Alive
Sharing family and outside work more equitably is only part of the gender-equality story. Today, most couples must forge their relationships in an environment of competing values and practical considerations in which there is little agreement about what constitutes appropriate behavior for men and women. Individuals are reshaping their family lives to take into account new opportunities and circumstances. Some couples are resisting the processes that keep gender inequalities in place and are discarding and transforming old gender legacies (e.g., Deutsch, 1999; Dienhart, 1998; Rabin, 1996; Risman, 1998). Others are getting stuck. Couples who hang on (either consciously or unconsciously) to old gendered patterns that were originally developed to meet different social and economic conditions find themselves struggling to cope with the demands of the 21st century.
Relationship models based on traditional gender roles implicitly organize around gender categories and male power. If heterosexual couples are to move toward the equality they say they want, they must become aware of and transform the power patterns in their relationships. However, discussion of power can be confusing and complex. People who assume they should be equal are often uncomfortable examining power in their relationships. Besides, gendered power differentials are often hard to see because they are embedded in taken-for-granted differences. Couples, and the professionals who work with them, frequently do not notice them. By default, behavior that fits within these traditional expectations is often either not noticed or viewed as normal. Both couples and professionals forge ahead as though partners are equal without examining the intricacies of the power processes beneath the surface.
Old cultural norms shape the nature of relationships in spite of a couple’s intention and desire. Even the way couples define equality is informed by old cultural stories and patterns of expected behavior expressed through personal orientations, which Hochschild (1989) calls gender ideologies, that is, norms about what has been expected, normal, and fair among marital partners. Because some couples and partners have been more influenced by these older gender ideologies than others, the term “fair” may refer to a wide range of couple and partner behavior. “Fair” does not necessarily refer to equal relationship conditions or fully take into account the needs of both partners (Hawkins, Marshall, & Meiners, 1995; Sanchez & Kane, 1996; Thompson, 1991).
Gender ideologies are replicated in the way men and women communicate with each other and influence the kind of emotional and relational symptoms men and women present in therapy. Power differences often go unrecognized by couples until a therapist asks a key question that elicits an answer like Tom’s, quoted at the beginning of this chapter: “I listen when I think it’s important.” How couples deal with these gender and power issues is integral to both individual wellbeing (Steil, 1997) and relationship success (Gottman & Silver, 1999; Johnson, 2003).
The impact of gender and gendered power on heterosexual couples is made more visible when we observe the lack of these kinds of power relationships in same-sex couples. There is considerable research that shows that committed gay and lesbian relationships tend to be more egalitarian than those of heterosexual couples (Connolly, 2005; Green, Bettinger & Zacks, 1996; Jonathan, 2009, this volume; Kurdek, 1995). Although same-sex couples, like all couples, do have to work through power issues, they do not have a ready-made framework of complementary gendered power expectations to structure their relationships. Without them they seem more able to create equitable relationships.
Heterosexual relationships, on the other hand, have tended to benefit men more than women. This discrepancy was first articulated through the research of sociologist J. Bernard in 1973. She made a strong case that, contrary to general belief, men were much more likely to prosper in marriage than women, especially with regard to mental and physical health. More recent research finds that, although a good relationship is related to better health status for both women and men (Sternberg, 2001), men still gain more benefits than women. Husbands, more often than wives, report being understood and affirmed by their spouses (Lynch, 1998). The lack of such support, as well as the stress of providing it for their spouses, is associated with depression in women (e.g., Bird, 1999; Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001; McGrath, Keita, Strickland, & Russo, 1990).
Stereotypic gender patterns and power differences between partners work against the shared worlds and egalitarian ideals that women and men increasingly seek. They limit options for both. The exercise of power of one partner over the other (dominance) is a prime deterrent to relationship success (Greenberg & Goldman, 2008). Consequently, gender and power are at the core of the struggles that contemporary couples face as they form families, engage in the workplace, and love each other.
Practitioners are not immune to these deeply embedded models of expected behavior. Like couples, clinicians hold equitable ideals but often fail to recognize underlying social patterns that work against them (Haddock, MacPhee, & Zimmerman, 2001). They can only make visible to clients what they themselves see. In the studies described in this book, researchers interviewed couples who were at different points on the change continuum. They looked for differences between couples who seemed to be moving toward more equal relationships and those who were having trouble. Then they identified strategies that professionals can use to help their clients transform their relationships from gender-based to equality-based.
Equality Promotes Relationship Success
Feminists advocate for gender equality. Family practitioners work for the well-being and stability of contemporary families. The goals of these two groups have often seemed at odds. Yet we are now learning that equality and relationship success are closely connected. There is a growing body of research in family and clinical studies that shows that partner inequality undermines relationship success and that equality promotes it (Cooke, 2006; Frisco & Williams, 2003).
Gottman’s findings from his long-term research on marriage are similar (Gottman & Silver, 1999). He found that husbands frequently stonewall (i.e., remove themselves mentally and emotionally from the conversation) when their wives raise relationship or other issues. Stonewalling behavior makes it difficult for wives to influence husbands or even have a sense that their unease is being heard. Wives, on the other hand, tend to engage in their husbands’ concerns. The effect of this gendered disparity in willingness to be influenced is dramatic. In Gottman’s studies, men who were unwilling to be influenced by their wives had an 81% risk of divorce (Gottman, Coan, Carrere, & Swanson, 1998). Contemporary women’s lack of interest in this kind of unbalanced relationship may account for recent findings that most divorces are now instigated by women (Coontz, 2005).
On the other hand, egalitarian family organization appears to enhance couple stability, as seen in Coltrane’s 1996 study of men. Coltrane argues that in itself, the act of caring for children changes men; it stimulates development of greater sensitivity and nurturing behavior. A study of couples who considered themselves to be successfully managing the work–family balance also showed that equality and partnership were central to success (Haddock, Zimmerman, Ziemba, & Current, 2001). Analysis of a national probability sample not only identified equal decision making as a critical factor in explaining relationship quality and stability, it also showed that the contribution of equality to relationship success has increased over the last 20 years (Amato, Johnson, Booth, & Rogers, 2003).
Why the connection between equality and relationship success? When power in the relationship is unequal, argues Beavers (1985), both partners are motivated to hide thoughts and emotions. The “top dog” cannot afford to be vulnerable; fear of showing weakness limits open communication and the capacity for intimacy. The “underdog,” afraid of upsetting the balance in the relationship or losing the relationship itself, holds back thoughts, feelings, and needs. Without open communication of emotions, vulnerabilities, and needs, intimacy is difficult. Steil’s 1997 study of the links among gender equality, personal well-being, and relationship satisfaction suggested that when partners perceive that they can influence each other (as in a more equal relationship), they are more likely to use direct-influence strategies. This openness in communication, in turn, is associated with reports of greater intimacy and relationship satisfaction for both women and men.
Attuned responsiveness and validation from others are vital to wellbeing and involve accommodating, adjusting the self in order to promote the relationship (Greenberg & Golden, 2008; Siegel, 2007). Dominance and controlling behavior do the opposite, leaving submissive partners unrecognized and minimizing their worth. Greenberg and Golden argue that this power dimension of intimate bonding is distinct from the affiliation dimension and must be addressed. Gendered power is an important piece of this relationship dynamic and restricts a couple’s capacity for mutual attending and nurturance (Dolan-Del Vecchio, 2008). Intimacy requires a model of a relationship based on equality, one that promotes the equal status and well-being of each partner and encourages both of them to attend to and accommodate the other.
Moving Toward a Model of Relationship Equality
Our conceptualization of relationship equality grew out of several years of in-depth reading, observing, and writing that was motivated by our dual concern for the equality of women and the strength and stability of marriages. Over time we have developed a framework in which to talk about gender equality in relationship. We see a couple’s movement toward equality as a process, a conscious transformation from a relationship that is structured by male power to one in which partners attempt to equally share responsibilities and benefits. Equality is not a status that is achieved, once and for all, but a dynamic ideal that partners work toward. It is commitment to a process that takes into account the needs and goals of both partners as these change in a shifting environment and over the life cycle.
Different Views on the Nature of Relationship Equality
Almost all couples say they want an “equal relationship” (Keith & Schafer, 1991; Walsh, 1989), but what they mean by this is often vague. How do couples know equality when they experience it? How do therapists recognize an equal relationship when they see one, or recognize that a couple’s definition of themselves as equal leaves out some essential dimensions?
The literature on gender equality in marriage is large and varied. To date there is little consensus on what equality is. Studies have been done, for example, from the perspectives of equality as fair exchange, balance of power, sharing household labor and child care, status equality, and shared decision making (Deutsch, 1999; Dienhart, 1998; Risman, 1998; Schwartz, 1994). As the field evolves, additional facets of family life, such as emotional and organizational labor, are being considered as well (Zimmerman, Haddock, Ziemba, & Rust, 2001).
In an extensive review of quantitative and qualitative studies on marital equality, Harris (2006) finds little agreement about how it should be defined and operationalized. He discovered in his own qualitative study of partners who defined themselves as “equal” that individuals had widely differing ideas about what being equal meant. Harris takes this as support for his phenomenological position that meaning always emerges from individual, situated experience and, as a consequence, it is not useful to establish guidelines for equality in marriage.
Although we appreciate and understand Harris’s position, we argue that it is possible to think about general dimensions or guidelines for an equal relationship. We argue that Harris’s emphasis on individual self-definitions of relationship equality does not take into consideration gendered power and the institutionalized processes that keep this power in place, often below the awareness of both partners. Contrary to Harris, we believe that some general guidelines for relationship equality are possible. These guidelines underlie our clinical work and the research analysis in this book.
The concept of relationship equality rests on the ideology of equality articulated in philosophical, legal, psychological, and social standards present today in American and world cultures. It rests on a notion of personal power. Personal power, as it is used in our model of marital equality, refers to the ability of one person to influence a relationship toward his or her own goals, interests, and well-being. It is related to the ability to set the agenda for discussion and negotiation (Wilkie, Ferree, & Ratcliff, 1998). The goal is for each partner to have his or her needs and concerns heard and considered equally with those of the other partner. This is a different kind of power than always being able to get your own way. Decisions are made in ways that maximize, as much as possible, the well-being of both partners in the short and long term. Power used in this way is also a form of empowerment. Each partner enables the other person to expand his or her range of choices and personal freedom. Personal gain is negotiated within the framework of the collective good of the relationship (Fishbane, 2001).
Personal power within a framework of the collective good is probably what most couples seek today. In individualistic cultures such as the United States, each partner wants to feel equally entitled to pursue his or her own personal goals. Many couples in traditional cultures also seek more egalitarianism than their parents had. This expanding desire for fairness is supported by a growing ideology of equality in many parts of the world and formal statements like The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (
Model of Relationship Equality
After looking at the many ways in which relationship equality has been defined, and as a result of our own clinical practice, research, and writing, we articulated a model of equality based on four relationship dimensions. These underlie both our clinical work and our current research. We have found these four dimensions useful in getting a sense of a client’s power issues and in helping clients recognize ways in which their relationship might be out of balance. They also guide analysis of our research interviews, the process for which is outlined in detail in chapter 3. The four dimensions of the model are: relative status, attention to the other, accommodation patterns, and well-being.
Relative Status
The focus of this dimension is on who defines what is important; who has the right to have, express, and achieve goals, needs, and interests. It asks whether both partners have the ability to use the relationship to support their interests. It has to do with both partners’ power to define the agenda of the relationship. Traditional gender socialization encourages feelings of entitlement in men and an expectation that women will put family needs before their own. To the extent that men and women absorb this set of expectations, even if unconsciously, they set themselves up for unequal status. We explore relative status through questions such as:
Whose interests shape what happens in the family?
To what extent do partners feel equally entitled to express and attain personal goals, needs, and wishes?
How are low status tasks like housework handled?
Attention to the Other
Part of the egalitarian model for relationships is an expectation that partners are emotionally present for and supportive of each other. They are attuned to each other’s needs and responsive to their emotions and stresses. We explore attention to the other through questions such as:
To what extent do both partners notice and attend to the other’s needs and emotions?
Does attention go back and forth between partners? Does each give and receive?
When attention is imbalanced do partners express awareness of this and the need to rebalance?
Accommodation Patterns
Accommodation to one another is a necessary part of couple life. If partners equally influence the relationship, then accommodations tend to be reasonably balanced over time. When accommodations are not equal, one partner appears to organize more of his or her life around the other. Accommodation by the lower status spouse may feel natural or expected to both partners and may happen automatically. We explore accommodation through questions such as:
Is one partner more likely to organize his or her daily activities around the other?
Does accommodation often occur automatically without anything being said?
Do partners attempt to justify accommodations they make as being “natural” or the result of personality differences?
Well-Being
In equal relationships burdens are shared and the well-being of each partner is supported equally, both in the short term and over the long haul. Even though equal well-being may not be possible all the time, both partners recognize a disparity when it occurs, acknowledge it, and work together to equalize it. We explore well-being through questions such as:
Does one partner seem to be better off psychologically, emotionally, or physically than the other?
Does one person’s sense of competence, optimism, or well-being seem to come at the expense of the other’s physical or emotional health?
Does the relationship support the economic viability of each partner?
The preceding standards for relationship equality emphasize joint concern for mutual well-being and benefit in a relationship. For most couples, development of an egalitarian relationship is likely to be an ongoing process as they move toward a more expanded view of personal power and work toward greater mutuality in their relationships. The dynamics of traditional gendered power makes this difficult. Men have been discouraged from sharing power and empathically listening and responding to the needs of others, whereas women have been discouraged from speaking up and asking for what they need.
Thus we cannot talk about gender without talking about power. Chapter 2 describes the social context of gendered power and the ways in which social structures and institutions intermesh to keep it in place, even though it may work against couples’ desires to develop the kind of relationship they want and need to adapt well to a rapidly changing world.
References
- Amato, P. R.,, Johnson, D. R.,, Booth, A., & Rogers S., (2003). Continuity and change in marital quality between 1980 and 2000. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 1–22.
- Beavers, W. R. (1985). Successful marriage: A family systems approach to couples therapy. New York: Norton.
- Bernard, J. (1973). The future of marriage. New York: World.
- Bird, C. (1999). Gender, household, and psychological disease: The impact of the amount and division of housework. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 40, 32–45.
- Coltrane, S. (1996). Family man: Fatherhood, housework, and gender equality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Connolly C., (2005). A qualitative exploration of resilience in long-term lesbian couples. Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 13, 266–280.
- Cooke, L. (2006). “Doing” gender in context: Household bargaining and risk of divorce in Germany and the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 112, 442–472.
- Coontz, S. (2005). Marriage, a history: From obedience to intimacy or how love conquered marriage. New York: Viking.
- Deutsch, F. M. (1999). Halving it all: How equally shared parenting works. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- Dienhart, A. (1998). Reshaping fatherhood: The social construction of shared parenting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Dolan-Del Vecchio, K. (2008). Making love, playing power: Men, women, and the rewards of intimate justice. Berkeley, CA: Soft Skull Press.
- Fishbane, M. D. (2001). Relational narratives of the self. Family Process, 40, 273–292.
- Fisher, K.,, Egerton, M.,, Gershuny, J., & Robinson J., (2006). Gender convergence in the American Heritage Time Use Study (AHTUS). Social Indicators Research. DOI. 10.1007/s11205-006-9017-y.
- Frisco, M., & Williams K., (2003). Perceived household equity, marital happiness, and divorce in dual-earner households. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 51–73.
- Giddens, A. (1999). The global revolution in family and personal life. In Giddens. A (Ed.), Runaway world: How globalization is reshaping our lives. New York: Routledge.
- Gottman, J.M.,, Coan, J.,, Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 5–22.
- Gottman, J. M., & Silver N., (1999). The seven principles for making marriage work. New York: Crown.
- Green, R.,, Bettinger, M., & Zacks E., (1996). Are lesbian couples fused and gay male couples disengaged? In Laird. J & Green R. (Eds.), Lesbians and gays in couples and families (pp. 85–230). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Greenberg, L. S., & Goldman R. N., (2008). Emotion-focused couples therapy: The dynamics of emotion, love, and power. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
- Haddock, S. A.,, MacPhee, D., & Zimmerman T. S., (2001). AAMFT Master Series Tapes: An analysis of the inclusion of feminist principles into family therapy practice. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 27, 487–500.
- Haddock, S. A.,, Zimmerman, T. S.,, Ziemba, S. J., & Current L. R., (2001). Ten adaptive strategies for work and family balance: Advice from successful families. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 27, 445–458.
- Harris, S. R. (2006). The meanings of marital equality. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
- Hawkins, A.,, Marshall, C., & Meiners K., (1995). Exploring wives’ sense of fairness about family work. Journal of Family Issues, 16, 693–721.
- Hochschild, A. (1989). The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home. New York: Viking.
- Hook, J. (2006). Care in context: Men’s unpaid work in 20 countries, 1965–2003. American Sociological Review, 71, 639–660.
- Horst, E., & Doherty W., (1995). Gender, power, and intimacy. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 6, 63–85.
- Johnson, S. M. (2003). The revolution in couple therapy: A practitioner-scientist perspective. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 29, 365–384.
- Jonathan, N. (2009). Carrying equal weight: Relational responsibility and attunement among same-sex couples. In Knudson-Martin. C & Mahoney A. R. (Eds.), Couples, gender, and power: Creating change in intimate relationships (pp. 79–103). New York: Springer Publishing Company.
- Keith, P., & Schafer R., (1991). Relationships and well-being over the life stages. New York: Praeger.
- Kiecolt-Glaser, J., & Newton, T. (2001). Marriage and health: His and hers. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 472–503.
- Kurdek, L. A. (1995). Developmental changes in relationship quality in gay and lesbian cohabiting couples. Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 86–94.
- Lang, M., & Risman B., (2006). Blending into equality: Family diversity and gender convergence. In Davis, D. K., Evans, M. & Lorber J. (Eds.), Handbook of gender and women’s studies (pp. 287–306). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Lynch, S. (1998). Who supports whom? How age and gender affect the perceived quality of support of family and friends. The Gerontologist, 38, 231–238.
- McGrath, E.,, Keita, G.,, Strickland, B., & Russo N., (1990). Women and depression: Risk factors and treatment issues. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
- Rabin, C. (1996). Equal partners good friends: Empowering couples through therapy. London: Routledge.
- Risman, B. (1998). Gender vertigo: American families in transition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
- Sanchez, L., & Kane E., (1996). Women’s and men’s constructions of perceptions of household fairness. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 358–387.
- Schwartz, P. (1994). Peer marriage: How love between equals really works. New York: Free Press.
- Siegel, D. (2007). The mindful brain: Reflection and attunement in the cultivation of well-being. New York: W.W. Norton.
- Steil, J. (1997). Marital equality: Its relationship to the well-being of husbands and wives. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
- Sternberg, E. (2001). The balance within: The science connecting health and emotions. New York: W.H. Freeman.
- Sullivan, O. (2006). Changing gender relations, changing families: Tracing the pace of change over time. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield.
- Thompson, L. (1991). Family work: Women’s sense of fairness. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 181–196.
- . United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (1979, December 18). Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.
- Walsh, F. (1989). Reconsidering gender in the marital quid pro quo. In McGoldrick, Anderson, & Walsh C. F. (Eds.), Women in families: A framework for family therapy (pp. 267–287). New York: Norton.
- Wilkie, J. R.,, Ferree, M. M., & Ratcliff, K. S. R. (1998). Gender and fairness: Marital satisfaction in two-earner couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 557–594.
- Zimmerman, T. S.,, Haddock, S. A.,, Ziemba, S., & Rust, A. (2001). Family organizational labor: Who’s calling the plays? Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 13(2/3), 65–90.