Do women rule in the home and in relationships? #74665

[Katya]

I think the best answer here, Vorpal, is that gender stereotyping doesn't work[.]

There. I fixed that for you.

[Marduk]

I'd like to say a few words about "compromise." I think far too often we see situations as being on a continuum, with each party's perspective at either end of the continuum. We then assume the word "compromise" to be a point somewhere on this line that can be met where neither side feels like they've completely lost their viewpoint, yet they are also not completely happy with the results. I find in just about every situation that exists that this is a false binary, that if we will look we will find new solutions that we didn't know existed until we began to look.

Just to take one example, there was a question about corporal punishment for children. (It seems this is a generational issue; spanking is more and more being put to the wayside. But that's a tangent.) If one parent believes in its use, and the other doesn't, that seems a pretty simple binary. How does one resolve that? Well, start by looking at root causes. Why does one believe it more effective? Why does the other believe differently? Are there other disciplinary measures upon which there is more agreement? Are there actions that will mitigate the (real or perceived) harm it will cause that can be co-implemented? Are there discipline times when it is more acceptable than others? All of these conversations have to happen in a place where communication is open and people are willing to look for alternatives, something that is the primary blockade to finding compromise in ANY relationship. It is also a skill to be developed, and everyone will vary in their capability at it. We must learn to be able to see root causes and understand desires of individuals, and to translate those into acceptable alternatives. I don't really believe that there is any binary which has no other outside options.

Vorpal, I think the example you picked is a GREAT example of communication that isn't open or honest. The Tea Party doesn't want compromise. There is extensive data to back this up. What they want is politicians who will "stand their ground" and fight for the causes they believe in. Any alternative solution will be seen as failure by definition. This is intransigence at its worst. Therefore, there is no compromise, there is no searching for alternative solutions, there is no real diplomacy going on. Instead, we have one side that says "nothing short of the repeal of Obamacare will satisfy us" and the other side that says "this is the law of the land. Deal with it." NOWHERE in this discussion are there talks of changing particular points, modifying some ideas, looking at ways to improve the implementation or make the system more functional. The reason conservatives and liberals aren't working together is because they don't want to, and there is no political motivation for them to do so. (Otherwise, we'd see a government that successfully passed laws, and didn't have the same fight so many years in a row.)

[thatonemom]

I don't have much to add, but I wanted to say that I appreciated your comment, Marduk. It reminded me of a book called Crucial Conversations that we read at one of my previous jobs, and it was all about how to work toward solutions when you disagree. And now I want to reread it. One of the things it mentions is assumptions we make about why people do what they do, and how those are generally unfavorable. And untrue. It's easy to assume your spouse is doing whatever because they're self-righteous, or selfish, or because of their gender, etc. (And I think gender stereotypes fit here because it's easy to assume women are naggy hags or men are lazy idiots and then treat them accordingly) That's hurtful because it can lead to getting entrenched in your own opinion and unwilling to look for other solutions.

Of course it's harder to communicate openly and fairly when you're emotionally involved in the situation, or have a history with that person that reinforces your assumptions about them. I don't think we get the chance to see healthy problem solving modeled much. And I think it can be easier for people outside the situation to suggest alternative solutions. Which is why I believe in therapy (at least in theory)

Anyway, all this rambling just to say that I think most of us could probably use a little help in doing exactly what Marduk recommended.

[Katya]

I'd like to say a few words about "compromise." I think far too often we see situations as being on a continuum, with each party's perspective at either end of the continuum. We then assume the word "compromise" to be a point somewhere on this line that can be met where neither side feels like they've completely lost their viewpoint, yet they are also not completely happy with the results. I find in just about every situation that exists that this is a false binary, that if we will look we will find new solutions that we didn't know existed until we began to look.

Just to take one example, there was a question about corporal punishment for children. (It seems this is a generational issue; spanking is more and more being put to the wayside. But that's a tangent.) If one parent believes in its use, and the other doesn't, that seems a pretty simple binary. How does one resolve that? Well, start by looking at root causes. Why does one believe it more effective? Why does the other believe differently? Are there other disciplinary measures upon which there is more agreement? Are there actions that will mitigate the (real or perceived) harm it will cause that can be co-implemented? Are there discipline times when it is more acceptable than others? All of these conversations have to happen in a place where communication is open and people are willing to look for alternatives, something that is the primary blockade to finding compromise in ANY relationship. It is also a skill to be developed, and everyone will vary in their capability at it. We must learn to be able to see root causes and understand desires of individuals, and to translate those into acceptable alternatives. I don't really believe that there is any binary which has no other outside options.

Right. When I say that my parents frequently compromise on issues, this is the type of compromise I mean. Not "I didn't get my way 50% of the time," but "we examined the problem, examined the desired outcome, and looked at why we were suggesting different approaches until we could agree on a single approach." Even though my parents have very different personalities, they ultimately have the same basic goals in life, so they are motivated to listen to each other and try to understand each other's point of view.

[vorpal blade]

I think it is great when two people can calmly and openly listen to one another and try to understand each other’s point of view in order to agree on a single approach. I think they should make every effort to do so. Thinking outside the box can really work. I totally agree with thatonemom. Where I possibly disagree with Marduk is that I don’t believe that mutually acceptable alternatives always exist. I’m honestly open to listening to Marduk’s alternate solution to the Obamacare issue which both President Obama and I would find acceptable. My goal is doing whatever is best for America, which presumably is President Obama’s goal, but I have no hope that President Obama and I would agree with Marduk’s solution, or any solution.

I’ll use an analogy. The Tea Party feels that Americans are being raped by Obamacare. The potential victim does not want to be raped, but the rapist insists on raping the victim. It would be great if a discussion could be held in advance where both rapist and victim are open to changing particular points, modifying some ideas, and looking at ways to improve the implementation or make the rape more functional, but only if that discussion leads to what the potential victim wanted to begin with. I don’t think we should criticize the victim for standing her ground, nor should we try to make her look intransient and lacking in open and honest communication skills for refusing to compromise. For the victim the only acceptable alternative is no rape at all. In many relationships, as well as in political parties, some people are being raped, which is the worst experience you can have.

[vorpal blade]

For Whistler's benefit, because she likes research studies, here are a couple of studies which indicate that women do rule in the home and in relationships.

A study done at the University of Iowa. http://www.public.iastate.edu/~nscentra ... ower.shtml

A study at the Pew Research Center. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/pe ... main_N.htm
or see http://www.livescience.com/2901-home-women-rule.html

[Whistler]

Those studies are interesting. I don't see these studies as proving that "women rule" at home though... it's more like they're more invested and care more about decisions about the home and are more aggressive in persuading their spouse about it. The studies don't mention if men are dissatisfied with this arrangement; the articles imply that being "influenced" by their wives is a good thing.

[S.A.M.]

Here's what is interesting to me about your Tea Party - Obamacare analogy. The relationship between the Democrats and Republicans is not based on mutual respect, trust, and understanding. They are both trying to discredit and demonze the other's position. In your example you say the Tea Partiers feel that America is being raped by Obamacare. The Democrats are saying if you don't support Obamacare, you are horrible, mean, and callous and don't care about the poor in America. If the relationship was based on mutual respect, trust, and understanding, we could be clear that Obamacare is a tax that will help cover healthcare for everyone. The discussion could be focused on how much we are willing to pay for this, and where the money should come from. Instead of having that discussion based on respect, they are both trying to get their way by trashing the other position. The Democrats aren't raping anybody. The Republicans do care about Americans. I hear these types of extreme name calling and demonizing of spouses too often.

it's more like they're more invested and care more about decisions about the home and are more aggressive in persuading their spouse about it.

Yep. I really don't mind what color my wife wants to paint the walls in the house (as long as its not too extreme!). I don't mind how the furniture is arranged. I don't mind what the kids wear. Most of the details that are important to her I can work with just fine.

[Imogen]

Can we...please stop referring to things that aren't rape as "being raped"? Just...it's really, really....not ok with me.

[vorpal blade]

If the relationship was based on mutual respect, trust, and understanding, we could be clear that Obamacare is a tax that will help cover healthcare for everyone. The discussion could be focused on how much we are willing to pay for this, and where the money should come from.

I think you are assuming the point to be proved. One side does not think that ObamaCare will be beneficial to Americans. As long as people insist on focussing on how much we are willing to pay, and where the money should come from we will not be addressing the issue of those who think it will be harmful to America, destroy a great health care system, foster government dependency, erode our fundamental rights, and weaken our freedoms and liberties. You have to be able to really understand the other's point of view or you are going to dismiss it as coming from a lack of mutual respect, trust, and good will. You don't have to agree with the Tea Party, but you do have to understand their point of view if you wish to find a mutually acceptable alternative.

[vorpal blade]

Those studies are interesting. I don't see these studies as proving that "women rule" at home though... it's more like they're more invested and care more about decisions about the home and are more aggressive in persuading their spouse about it. The studies don't mention if men are dissatisfied with this arrangement; the articles imply that being "influenced" by their wives is a good thing.

What the Iowa State University shows is that

Moreover, wives behaviorally exhibited more domineering attempts and were more dominant (i.e., more likely to have their partner give in) than husbands during discussions of either spouse’s topic. (p. 173).

It wasn't just what women were invested in or cared more about. Men and women each separately came up with topics that they personally felt were important and cared about, and in both the men's and the women's topics women were domineering and were dominant in the observed discussions the couple had together.

The researchers were not able to find a correlation between demand and withdraw behaviors and marital satisfaction. So it is possible that men are not dissatisfied with this arrangement.

As for the other study,

To explore decision-making in the typical American home, a Pew Research Center survey asked men and women living in couples which one generally makes the decisions in four familiar areas of domestic life. Who decides what you do together on the weekend? Who manages the household finances? Who makes the decisions on big purchases for the home? And who most often decides what to watch on television? The survey finds that in 43% of all couples it’s the woman who makes decisions in more areas than the man. By contrast, men make more of the decisions in only about a quarter (26%) of all couples. And about three-in-ten couples (31%) split decision-making responsibilities equally.
...
More than a third of all adults 65 or older say they make most of the decisions with their spouses in at least three of the four areas tested – double the proportion of the joint decision-makers among couples younger than 30.

I guess it depends on whether you consider these issues to be issues women are more invested in and care more about. Could be it is women.

I don't see either men or women ruling with brute force or without consulting with their spouses. But being domineering and persisting until you get your way may be a good enough definition of "ruling" for me.

[Marduk]

I think a brief discussion of word definition is in order. An analogy is when two things are alike in some way. It usually involves a comparison of those two things based on the way they are alike. For this to function, a clear aspect of similarity must be identified and highlighted. Hyperbole is another literary tool, which is language that is used to suggest something is better or worse than it really is. If we were to confuse the two we might think that a particular attribute of something was being highlighted in order to illuminate it, when in actuality we were trying to exaggerate the effects of it. It is important that this not happen.

For a conversation to function, an analogy might be helpful. Hyperbole generally is not. A brief example might help. Let's say a couple disagrees on the effectiveness of spanking as a form of punishment. The husband believes it to be an effective tool for discipline (spare the rod, spoil the child.) The wife believes it harmful, and that other ways might better serve parental purpose. An analogy the father might use is to say that it is akin to whipping a horse to direct it, therefore it must be ok to spank a child. There may be faults in this analogy, and exploring those faults is an effective way to further the conversation. A hyperbole the mother might use is to say spanking is like raping the children, and she does not want the father to rape the children. This sort of dialogue represents a very flawed understanding of child care and rape that will fundamentally hinder any sort of productive dialogue the couple might have about a solution. Unless and until the mother can understand that rape is a violent crime which leaves deep emotional and often physical scars, and the other is a disciplinary measure which may or may not be effective, the discussion simply cannot proceed. She demonstrates basic failure to understand facts, which no amount of "compromise" will remedy.

Compromise requires those who are coming to the table to have a basic understanding of facts and a reasonable outlook of potential consequences. It also almost always requires not comparing the smallest tax increase in history to rape.

[S.A.M.]

it will be harmful to America, destroy a great health care system, foster government dependency, erode our fundamental rights, and weaken our freedoms and liberties.

Exactly the position that shows a lack of respect, trust, and good will. Why would anyone, Democrat, Republican, or other want anything that would be so terrible? This is just like a spouse telling the other that the way they are parenting will destroy their children, foster dependence on their parents, and erode their ability to judge what is right. Saying these things about Obamacare is demonizing the other sides ideas and positions. You almost have to believe that the Democrats want to destroy America to believe this.

I don't like Obamacare, I understand completely the Tea Party's position, but vilifying it doesn't allow for creating a solution that is good for the people.

A couple should be able to believe that each of them wants a happy successful family, and despite sometimes fundamental differences of opinion, must be able to find a shared vision of what that happy successful family is.

[Portia]

Emily Post is destroying America!

[vorpal blade]

There are various techniques one uses to domineer in a relationship. One of the more common ones is to trivialize the feelings and point of view of the other. For example, “It also almost always requires not comparing the smallest tax increase in history to rape,” makes the least significant objection to ObamaCare appear to be the sole objection. Notice the dismissive nature of the comment and unwillingness to consider any other issues. I hear that compliant a lot in relationships. She says she is concerned about something, and he makes her feel that she is being unreasonable to feel the way she does. As though her feelings had no validity. Calling someone’s analogy “hyperbole” is another example.

We see another controlling technique in the condescending and patronizing attitude of the father in Marduk’s example. Social scientists call this withdraw behavior, “when one partner attempts to avoid discussing a problematic issue in the relationship.” The father does this by assuming that only he has a valid understanding of child care. He is unwilling to listen to his wife, who may have done considerable research that indicates to her that spanking can lead to anxiety, alcohol abuse, dependence, externalizing problems, self-blame, suicide, and disruptions to normal physical, emotional, cognitive, and interpersonal behavior. (See Wikipedia articles on spanking and rape.) She may be wrong, but the father’s attitude is that he alone has a basic understanding of the facts; he alone has a reasonable outlook of potential consequences, so no “compromise” is possible with his wife. He then exhibits withdraw behavior and blames his wife for the failure to resolve the problem.

S.A.M. shows another technique. I often see this in relationships. She says something like, “Honey, I don’t think you should spank the kids. I’ve read that it can be very harmful to children, foster dependence, and erode their ability to judge what is right.” Now ideally the husband will kindly listen not only to her words but the emotional content of her message, and communicate with her as a rational human being. Ideally he would understand that she comes from a position of respect, trust, and good will.

Far too often, however, the response is something like this “So you think I’m trying to hurt the kids? Why are you making me out to be the bad guy? I love my children. Why are you accusing me of being a horrible parent?” The technique here is to shift the discussion of the issue, spanking, to one of evil motives and blaming people. The woman isn’t trying to vilify her husband. She knows he loves the children. She just believes that spanking is evil and her husband is unknowingly using an evil practice. How is she supposed to get her opinion across if she cannot express how she feels about spanking without her husband accusing her of trying to vilify him? She is not at fault for talking about spanking the way she believes it is. He is at fault for trying to make the issue one of vilifying people. The shared vision of a happy successful family starts with listening to your partner without cutting off discussion with accusations of demonizing and vilifying.

By the way, I’m just using spanking as an example. I mostly don’t agree with those who oppose it.

These examples show part of the reason why so many couples fail to find an equally acceptable solution, or resolve things in a truly egalitarian manner. No wonder women rule in the home.

[Portia]

Out of curiosity, Vorps, what is triggering this line of thought for you? Personal experience? Your kids' marriages? The recent (failed) feminist movement within the LDS Church?

[S.A.M.]

The shared vision of a happy successful family starts with listening to your partner without cutting off discussion with accusations of demonizing and vilifying.

Yes. You just flipped the example around. We're saying the same thing here.

[vorpal blade]

Out of curiosity, Vorps, what is triggering this line of thought for you? Personal experience? Your kids' marriages? The recent (failed) feminist movement within the LDS Church?

All of the above.

[Portia]

FWIW, I am probably one of the more outspoken feminists on this forum, yet when it comes to household nonsense, I am happy to defer to a parent/grandparent/man. Whereas some of the women here who are most in favor of personal responsibility and emphasize empathetic communication seem to be quite happy with the status quo on things like women and the priesthood.

Most the younger people on here are way, way more share-y than I would be with my romantic partners. Trust me, nothing interests me less than how my kids eat at the table, how my boyfriends spend their money (don't wanna know), or telling them how to act. As long as a guy isn't humilating me at dinner, he can do as he pleases. So is my hands-off approach to relationships because I am an evil feminist, or because I am not traditional enough? Please, enlighten me.


This cocktail is more interesting than you, kiddos!

[Portia]

I think you should check out this Pew Survey to get a sense of how much things have changed since Ye Olden Days, Vorpal:

The amount of time parents spend with their children continues to go up. Fathers have nearly tripled their time with children since 1965. Mothers’ time with children has also increased, and today’s mothers spend more time with their children than mothers did in the 1960s.

The amount of time parents spent doing housework has changed significantly too. Fathers’ time spent doing household chores has more than doubled since 1965 (from an average of about four hours per week to about 10 hours). Mothers’ time doing housework has gone down significantly over the same period (from 32 hours per week to 18).

Men spend more time than women in leisure activities (such as watching TV, playing games, socializing and exercising). The gender gap in leisure time is bigger among men and women who do not have children in the house (37 hours per week for men vs. 32 hours per week for women). Among parents with children under age 18, fathers spend, on average, 28 hours per week on leisure activities, while mothers spend 25 hours on leisure.

A plurality of mothers (45%) and about four-in-ten fathers (41%) say the best thing for a young child is to have a mother who works part time. Relatively few (16%) say having a mother who works full time is best for children. Mothers’ views about this have remained relatively consistent over the past few years, while fathers’ attitudes have changed significantly. In 2009, 54% of fathers with children under age 17 said the ideal situation for young children was to have a mother who did not work at all outside the home; today only 37% of fathers say that—a drop of 17 percentage points.

The times, they are a-changin'. How can you be surprised that when the fabric of our lives is woven so differently, we have different values? (For the record, I would be verrrrry happy as a '60s mom who devotes more time to herself. This having it all nonsense is leading directly to our overmedicated, perfectionist world. My mom was a latchkey kid in the '70s and turned out fine.)