[ Review Home ]
Several studies, of varying size and statistical validity, with slightly varying critera for inclusion, have been done over the last two decades of increasingly non-traditional married couples. In my usual desultory and not particularly directed fashion, I've picked up three trade books describing such studies:
They all examine heterosexual (since marriage is a consistent criterion for inclusion) couples, in most cases both of members of which work for pay outside the home full-time. As all too many of us know, the definition of full-time is variable -- it may mean forty hours, but then again it might mean eighty. The focus is frequently on upper-middle or upper class white couples, altho over time more of the studies address some of the differences in the black experience, and include more working and middle class couples. The couples range in age from mid-twenties to middle or late forties, with the average consistently falling in the mid-thirties, with a difference between the average age by sex of about one year. The older two studies are not representative statistically (the first was a snowball sample of twenty-one couples; the second a modified snowball).
Three separate kinds of marriage emerge from these books: the old-style single-earner (male provider, female supporter and child-rearer); the extremely common dual-earner in which the man frequently makes a lot more than the woman and probably has more say in how the money is spent and less say in how the children are raised; and the probably still rare but getting less so peer marriage.
Before analyzing in more detail the differences in character between these three styles of marriage and what problems they solve and create, it's worth noting what isn't being studied in these books. Co-habiting couples are dismissed -- co-habitation is considered an inadequate test of a relationship, not serious enough somehow. Homosexual couples are dismissed, mentioned only very occasionally in passing. Childless couples are not dismissed, but they are often treated as less of a test of a peer relationship than couples with children. The black experience is dismissed, or mentioned only very occasionally as being more inherently equal as black men have been consistently denied opportunities in the work place which were available to white men but not necessarily women. Career couples are treated with greater weight than couples with "jobs". These omissions in analysis are not accidental, and I suspect that a full analysis of how peer marriages come into existence will require that attention be paid to these omitted groups.
The following seem to be the top four snags encountered in the quest for a fully equal sharing in the relationship, listed in order of increasing difficulty to overcome.
In dual-earner households, two major types of accounting systems are possible, with near infinite variety amongst the two. Hertz describes these as separate and pooled. In the former, as you might imagine, each partner retains a large degree of autonomy, separate accounts, etc., and pays money either into a shared account for shared bills, or the bills are split. Consensus is required in order for a bill to be considered shared -- if I buy a car, it's my bill unless my partner agrees to the purchase and agrees it is our car. Many large possessions may be designated his (sofa) or hers (water-bike). Typically mortage or rent, utilities, etc. are shared. In the pooled scheme, both members put their paycheck into a shared account, and all bills are paid out of this account. Large possessions are clearly theirs, and permission may be required or perceived as required for purchasing items clearly his or hers.
Hertz (and others) have repeatedly found that discretionary spending out of pooled resources is typically disproportionately controlled by one of the two partners, often independent of who makes more money. This constitutes a lack of equality.
When debating who does more work around the house, all too often researchers discount the work done by men (car and house maintenance, lawn and yard care, bookkeeping). Anyone who has been stuck doing it all alone knows that both genders typically contribute the care and upkeep of a shared home. A case can be made, however, that a lot of the tedious, unavoidable, time-pressure tasks are traditionally assigned to women (laundry, daily cooking). Dual-earners are pressed for time, and so let a lot of stuff go: surface clean the house; don't bother with the car, etc. They also hire other services: take-out or fast-food, a cleaning service. Responsibility for making the hired arrangements work often disproportionately falls to the woman. This constitutes a lack of equality.
The above comment about responsibility for hired cleaning etc. applies also to hired child care. Early infant care seems especially troublesome; vanishingly few men take family leave, even when it is available. To the extent the man is denied equal time with a child, this constitutes a lack of equality. Especially disturbing is the lack of support for men who do take family leave, or who cut their career back to spend more time with their child.
It would be fairly straightforward to argue that child care is harder to share equally than it is to even out the gender roles of who initiates and who decides whether to accept or refuse sex. I suspect, however, that with adequate study of this point, it could be shown that more couples have evolved an equal split of child-rearing than have evolved an equal split of responsibility for the sexual relationship. This is a subtle problem, partially addressed by Pepper Schwartz, when she describes the need for partners to both be responsible for romantic gestures and creating an environment for sexual excitement. The process of initiation when the other partner is, if not opposed, not particularly receptive is subtle and full of pitfalls, requiring enormous tact, sensitivity and emotional strength, for which men just don't get enough credit.
In order to understand this issue, more attention needs to be paid to dating and co-habiting couples, for whom sex has not become "comfortable", and while the man is still figuring out the woman -- when she has a chance to pay attention, learn how he learns what to do, and to turn that knowledge around. This absolutely has to stop being a case of "what should I do to turn him on so he will" and should become a case of "what should I do to turn him on so I can". Warren Farrell's tale of the telephone call (when he doesn't call the next morning, don't call your girlfriend and bitch about it -- call him!) is an excellent example. (From the improbably titled but to my mind quite good Why Men Are the Way They Are) Many writers dealing with this issue focus on knowing when someone is receptive, rather than describing how one goes about creating receptivity. Even Pepper Schwartz' suggestions are mostly along the lines of calling the bedroom off-limits to work discussion, arranging weekends away from it all, paying attention to how one looks for one's spouse, etc.
Many of these authors stress that these couples didn't get to be this way through "ideology". One wonders both what that means and why they feel compelled to point this out. I believe they are attempting to make clear that the partners didn't do something like, "Traditional Families are Not Politically Correct Therefore We're Not Going to Do That". Much is made of the economic incentives for dual-earning, peer or near-peer relationships and the punishments suffered by the those who stick to the traditional model. As one reads these summaries, and particularly the quotes from the interviewees, one starts to get the distinct feeling their is an ideology, or perhaps two. One is, No Way Am I Making That Mistake Again and the other is, That Isn't Fair. The former appears to be the result of failed marriage closer to the traditional single-earner model and/or a horror of turning out like one's parents; the latter seems to be both cause and result of women working and having their own money.
[ Review Home ]
This file recreated from The Internet Wayback Machine in January 2002. Copyright Rebecca Allen, 2002.
Created December 2, 1996 Modified: January 10, 2002