Equal Couples

Thank you Lise Eliot!  Everywhere I go, otherwise knowledgeable persons routinely express the belief that the differences they observe between women and men are innate; that they are hard-wired into the brain and can not be changed. The trouble with this argument—besides being wrong—is that these so-called “natural” differences are used to justify gender inequalities.  Eliot’s new book, Pink Brain Blue Brain: How Small Differences Grow into Troublesome Gaps—and What We Can Do About It, dispells this myth in the very first chapter.

According to Eliot, the myth arises from a misunderstanding of neuroscience. First, claims such as that men are wired for aggression and women for communication or that women are naturally more verbal than men are ”cherry-picked” from studies of adults but applied to children, or are extrapolated from studies of animals.  Secondly, the differences that may exist are small and best explained by the interaction of the brain with the enviroment.  In other words, our brains are created by what we do.  They evolve in response to experience. This “plasticity”  is the basis for all learning.

There are some truly innate genetic and hormonal differences, but Eliot points out that the male-female differences that really matter are heavily shaped by learning.  Our cultural propensity to exaggerating gender stereotypes is harmful to both women and men and makes  relationships difficult for all the reasons we’ve noted in other posts.

 Eliot’s book is really important. I will be requiring it in my gender classes from now on. The book confronts  the myth of innate gender differences with solid science and challenges us to do better. This is needed now more than ever, because as Elliot points out, in the last twenty years fascination with exaggerated claims regarding sex differences has grown. And what we believe about the basis for such differences has important personal and political consequences.

Posted by Carmen

 I think one of the reasons that couples get stuck in old, unequal relationship patterns is that—to greater or lesser extents—old constructions of gender have become part of our identities.  We can be moving along, thinking we are beyond old gender ideologies and then suddenly find ourselves caught by gender messages that have been allowed to define us.  Creating relational change means  redefining how we know ourselves as women and men. Tom Blume calls this identity renegotiation.

Here’s an example. Last night our clinical research team was working with a couple. At the start of therapy the wife was “ready to walk.” But what she really wanted was to connect with her husband—to know what he was thinking and feeling.  The husband also wanted to connect with her—in theory. But when he considered sharing what he was thinking and feeling, he stopped short. When we probbed what was happening, he said that sharing in this way would “make him feel weak.”

Stereotypic gender socialization creates a power imbalance by inviting women to tune into their partners, but discouraging men from doing the same. This left the husband in our case operating from a position that made it difficult for his wife to affect him or for him to recongize and be accountable for the impact his behavior on her. 

The therapist helped the husband challenge the cultural messages that told him that what was he was feeling would be unacceptable to others; that he needed to hide any sign of  “weakness” or be a failure as a man.  We could see his identity literally start to shift as he confronted this lie with tears of relief.

According to Blume, identities are not permanent like a personality. They arise within the circumstances around us.  Societal gender messages are especially  influential and can be deeply internalized. Breaking free from these identities can be difficult. But it is possible and, as our client discovered, makes developing mutually supportive relationships possible. 

posted by Carmen

 This morning Meet the Press addressed institutional lag in the workplace; that families have changed much more than the places they work. This is a critical issue for couples commited to equality. One of the guests was Maria Shriver. She has just completed a report called “A Women’s Nation” that NBC will be featuring this week.

I was surprised to see this subject getting prime coverage on a “serious” news show–rather than a special feature somewhere else. I think it may be because work-family issues are starting to be more than a “woman’s” issue. And because host David Gregory is a father of young children. 

Gregory spoke about how he had to speak to his boss about reducing and rescheduling his hours to better fit his wife’s. He reported that his female boss was quite willing to help him work this out. Good as it is to hear this kind of new gender behavior given favorable press, Shriver brought us back to the need for change and the gendered nature of power. She noted that confronting one’s employer  may be easier for him than for most women. (And I think for most men).

Check out the links above to listen to the show or read the report. I haven’t read all of Shriver’s report yet, but it appears well-researched. What is especially important is that it calls for institutional changes in the workplace instead putting all the focus on the individual family and what they should do. Valerie Jerrett, another panelist on the show (an advisor to Obama), also emphasized the need to encourage positive workplace behavior–to identify what is working in some work settings and policies that invite others to follow their lead.

  Bravo to NBC for making work-family issues front and center this week.

posted by Carmen

Seems like they should be, given all the social changes we have experienced in the last twenty years. Indeed many work consciously to create an equal relationship. Others just assume that relationships are equal now. Inequalities now are often more subtle and easier to ignore.  We’ve talked in earlier posts about the myth of equality.

When partners are both working and have no children, balance may seem easy. However children or some other life changing event can radically unbalance the relationship unless partners consciously discuss what they want. The process of equality is ongoing. As our life situations change, we have to rethink our relationships

posted by Anne

I just rediscovered a gem of a book–The Real Rules: How to Find the Right Man for the Real You by Barbara De Angelis (1997). De Angelis says she wrote the book for those who dream of an equal relationship: “no games, no power struggle, just a loving, intimate, mutually respectful partnership” (p. 4).  The book offers a new set of “rules” to contradict the old ones  that “go back centuries.”

The old rules for how to “catch a man” are based on historical power differences between women and men and the idea that the most important accomplishment in a woman’s life  is finding and marrying a guy–that this is where her value is.  The old rules told women to avoid being too open, too smart, or too honest.

The old rules were based on the idea that men like to feel that they are in control. They encouraged women to use their sexuality to get a man’s attention. Perhaps this made sense when women had no options except marriage. But everything’s changed now. Right? Not so much as one would think.  And men are often still evaluated in terms of their money, power, and station in life instead of the quality of his heart or whether he’s interested in you and who you really are.

One of the main points we make in Couples, Gender, and Power: Creating Change in Intimate Relationships, is that despite widespread preference for egalitarian relatonships, people still get caught in the old rules without really intending to.   When couples fall into old gender patterns, we set ourselves up for disappointment.  

De Angelis challenges women not to sabbotage their personal power and self esteem by “playing games” to “get” men. She points out that with the old rules women easily end up with the wrong man. In contrst, the new “real” rules will eliminate any man who isn’t interested in an equal partnership or the genuine “you.”

A key test of a relationship rule, De Angelis says, is whether the same rule would apply for men as women. For example, boys don’t grow up thinking they will be a failure if they can’t find a woman to legitimate them.

The book is short and quick to read.  It can be a good way to check if you have left relationship rules that support male dominance behind.  It can help increase awareness of the ways the media and what we tell each other still perpetuate aspects of the old, unequal gender system. Though written for women, the book  will also help men interested in more genuine, and equitable, intimate relationships.

What do you think? Have we moved beyond the old rules? I’d love to hear your reports of how old rules get perpetuated and what you do when you catch yourself in them. What new rules do you go by? How did you learn them?

posted by Carmen

Shouldn’t each couple define for itself what equality means? No. And yes.  One reason we have offered a definition of equality is that there has not been a general definition of couple equality that is widely shared. In developing a definition, as you can see from our earlier posts, it is important to become aware of and take into consideration hidden gender power.  Often discussion about equality is limited to who does the house work without any probing of deeper power issues.

That said, once we have some understanding of the larger issues which impact our own relationship from outside, one of the keys for success as intimate equals is to customize our own relationship. Once we have the general outline of what promotes equality in our relationship, we can begin to create our own individual patterns.

For example, a couple may decide that one or the other partner will stay home to care for young children. In an equal relationship, couples  do so only after having consciously and fully explored all their options from both partner’s points of view. They consciously establish financial arrangements that minimize the stay-at-home partner’s dependence on the earning partner. Each moves forward with the understanding that the situation can be changed at any time if it doesn’t work for both partners. The key to success is open and on-going evaluation and negotiation, keeping each family member’s well being in mind.

Posted by Anne

In the past couples depended on women to do the relational work of tuning into the other that Carmen described in her recent post.  The importance of this process has  often been overlooked or devalued. An important part of equality is recognizing how much couples, families, and society as a whole need the emotional and relational work women have done quietly and invisibly in the past. Women are less willing now to carry this responsibility alone. Sharing this relational work is an important first step toward building relationships that are not only more equal, but more satisfying to both partners.

What this means though, is that men will increasingly feel the pressure to develop these skills. In our experience most men value their relationships (yes, even more than work) and want to learn the skills they need to help hold their relationships together. But the new behaviors often feel unnatural and unnecessary. The norms of masculinity still disparage relationship-building skills in the emotional arena, although value them highly in business and political contexts. Meanwhile a lot of relationships die due to lack of mutual nurturing.

Posted by Anne

My class is reading about privilege this week. When students become aware of privilege it changes how they view their work. In the first chapter of The Gendered Society Michael Kimmel describes his experience of becoming aware of his privilege as a white, middle class male. Before then, when he looked in the mirror he saw himself as a generic person. Here is what he says:

“Since then, I’ve come to understand that race, class, and gender don’t refer only to other people . . . those terms also describe me. I enjoyed the privilege of invisiblity . . . only white people have the luxury not to think about race every minute of their lives. And only men have the luxury to pretend that gender does not matter. . .because our privilege is invisible, we may become defensive. Hey, we may even feel like victims ourselves. . . The illusion of gender neutrality has serious consequences for both women and men.” (p. 7) 

So how do we confront male privilege in our personal relationships? Or in our work with couples and families? Where I begin is to believe that nearly all men want connection. They want to love and be loved. When the notion is made visible to them, the most of the men that I see in couple therapy almost universally reject the idea that they should have power over their partners. So much of my job is helping to make the invisible visible.

In the case that Doug Huenergardt and I are presenting at the American Association of Marital and Family Therapy conference tomorrow in Sacramento, the husband gets upset when his wife is not available to him when he wants her. Like many men, he has been socialized to expect that he is entitled to be listened to and attended to. But he very much wants his marriage. He is not aware that he is not equally available to her.  It is not surprising that at this point, the wife is not sure she wants the relationship.  

Part of the solution, I think, is for men to get more in touch with and acknowledge their need for relational connection. This makes it easier to be accountable for the effect of one’s actions on another and to share responsibility for success of the relationship.

Posted by Carmen