The power structure of traditional relationships is a wellspring of
resentment that ultimately undermines love. So welcome a new kind of
coupling that's more intimate and rewarding to both partners. America's
leading sociologist of sex finds that "peer marriage" has arrived--and it
works!
It is the nature of human relationships that each commitment
requires some modifications of totally unfettered individual
self-interest. I have spent the past several years studying an emerging
type of relationship in which couples have successfully reconstructed
gender roles on a genuinely equitable basis. I call these "Peer
Marriages." The rule books haven't been written yet; peer couples are
making it up as they go along. But this much I have observed: Peer
couples trade a frustrated, angry relationship with a spouse for one of
deep friendship. They may have somewhat tamer sex lives than couples in
traditional marriages. They definitely have fewer external sources of
validation. And these couples have a closeness that tends to exclude
others. But theirs is a collaboration of love and labor that produces
profound intimacy and mutual respect. Traditional couples live in
separate spheres and have parallel lives. Above all, peer couples live
the same life. In doing so, they have found a new way to make love
last.
The dialogue of the decade is the sound of American men and women
reshuffling traditional gender relations. The common experience is that
women enter the labor force with little or no modification of their
traditional duties at home. There, it is said, they work a "second
shift." And they break down. While that may be true for the majority, I
now know that is not the way it has to be.
In 1983, my late colleague, sociologist Philip Blumstein, Ph.D.,
and I published American Couples, discussing our decade-long study on the
nature of American relationships. During the course of that study I
noticed that there were many same-sex couples, and a few heterosexual
ones, with an egalitarian relationship that both partners felt was fair
and supportive. As a sociologist, I sometimes get trapped by the law of
large numbers instead of those in the minority. But over time, I realized
there was more I wanted to know about these people, about their success
at this aspect of their relationship. How could married couples get past
traditions of gender and construct a relationship they both needed? I
began reexamining those couples, and sought out more of them to talk to
and learn from.
These couples, I discovered, base their marriage on a mix of
equity--each person gives in proportion to what he or she receives--and
equality--each has equal status and is equally responsible for emotional,
economic, and household duties. But these couples have more than their
dedication to fairness. They achieve a true companionship and a deeply
collaborative marriage. The idea of "peer" is important because it
incorporates the notion of friendship. Peer marriages embody a profound
psychological connection.
PEERING AT PEERS
In their deep and true partnership based on equality, equity, and
intimacy, peer couples, I found, share four important
characteristics.
o The partners do not have more than a 60/40 traditional split of
household duties and child raising. The couples do a lot of accounting;
the division of duties does not happen naturally on account of our
training for traditional male and female roles. These couples ask
themselves, "What wouldn't get done if I didn't do it?" The important
thing is they do not get angry. These partners demonstrate that couples
do not have to have a perfect split of responsibilities to lose
resentment; what it does take is good will and a great deal of effort and
learning skills. We may not be able to jettison our socialization, but we
can modify it.
o Both partners believe the other has equal influence over
important decisions.
o Both partners feel they have equal control of the family economy
and reasonably equal access to discretionary funds. The man does not have
automatic veto power. Money is so crucial because in our society, and
most societies, we give final authority to the person who is the economic
support of the relationship. If you ever have to say, "I'll do that if
he'll let me," or "I don't know if she'll let me," that should be an
alert. It's not a question of what someone lets you do or not do with
money, it's what you've arrived at as a couple. Insofar as we let money
determine status in the relationship, it always corrodes equality and
friendship.
o Each person's work is given equal weight in the couple's life
plans. Whether or not both partners work, they do not systematically
sacrifice one person's work for the other's. The person who earns the
least is not the person always given the most housework or child care.
These couples consciously consider the role of marriage and their
relationship in making their life plans. They examine how they wanted to
be married.
Many couples I talked to believed they were doing this, or believed
in the ideology of equality--but in actuality they weren't doing it. They
were doing the best they could. Or they knew they weren't doing it now
and had deferred it to "some day." Many had plans for it. I call these
couples "near peers." Most couples in American culture today are near
peers. I compared the peer and near peer couples to traditional
couples--those who divide male and female roles into separate spheres of
influence and responsibility, with final authority given to the
husband.
Tags:
american couples,
american men,
equality,
external sources,
friendship,
gender relations,
gender role,
human relationships,
marriage,
mutual respect,
peer marriage,
peer relationship,
power structure,
rule books,
separate spheres,
sex lives,
sociologist,
traditional couples,
traditional gender,
wellspring
