The American Journal of Family Therapy, 29:109124, 2001 Copyright 2001 Brunner-Routledge 0192-6187 /01 $12.00 + .

00

The Post-Feminist Era: Still Striving for Equality in Relationships

KIMBERLY M. RODMAN ARONSON and ESTER SCHALER BUCHHOLZ
New York University, School of Education, Washington Square, New York, USA

As for the past 30 years, Western society continues to grapple with a major sex-role revolution. Changes from the availability of contraception and persistent feminist protests disrupted the respective duties of men and women in what was called the traditional family. Since the industrial revolution, traditional meant the patriarchal family with men holding the prominent role of breadwinner in the family. Women stayed home to raise and nurture the children. This arrangement has been questioned, especially as vast numbers of women enter the workforce and improve their education. The position taken here is that although women have made strides in developing their autonomy, they frequently do not feel that they have an equal partnership in their intimate relationships. Men also feel a growing dissatisfaction with their positions in relation to women. The paper discusses the reasons why, despite changes in both society and attitudes of men and women towards their roles, there still exists inequality between the sexes in their lives together. Discussed, as well, is how this inequality negatively affects intimate relationships. Finally, the paper will suggest ways that men and women and society can remedy the situation and encourage greater fulfillment in love.

As for the past 30 years, Western society continues to grapple with changes in sex-role obligations (Slipp, 1996). While, social reformers challenged the patriarchal standard earlier (most notably the Suffragettes), it was not until the most recent feminist movement (jump-started in the 1960s by Betty Friedans landPublished by the New York University Psychoeducational Center, School Psychology Programs, Department of Applied Psychology, New York University. Address correspondence to Kimberly Rodman Aronson, 15 West 75th Street, Apt. PhB, New York, NY 10023. 109

110

K. M. Rodman Aronson and E. S. Buchholz

mark, The Feminine Mystique) and availability of effective contraception that a profound impact was made on relationships between men and women. No longer are traditional family roles of men and women taken for granted. Access to employment and salary provides todays woman with choices she did not have in the past. Many women have emancipated themselves from various constrictive cultural stereotypes. They have entered the workplace in vast numbers, with the potential of becoming economically independent. Some have gained newfound feelings of autonomy and selfconfidence, further undermining traditional gender roles. Pepper Schwartz (1994) says that the empowered woman does not automatically accept a subordinate role to men. Both at work and in romantic relationships, many women strive for a partnership with men more equal than they had before (Schwartz, 1994). An egalitarian relationship is defined as both partners sharing power, decision-making, financial and emotional contributions, as well as childrearing and homemaking (Carter, 1996; Levant, 1995; Schwartz, 1994). Because most women work (65% of women hold jobs with children under the age of 6), they want men to share household and childrearing tasks (Schwartz, 1994). Women also want men to contribute emotionally, and many are tired of the ascribed role of emotional gatekeeper in their relationships (Schwartz, 1994; Levant, 1995) Even though men are both pushed and willing to redefine their gender roles, there appears to be a lag in an overall acknowledgment that roles are changing (Carter, 1996). No doubt this is partially because a shift of power is called for, which interferes with long held patriarchal views. In this capitalistic society, the business world and societal mores have not adapted to a more egalitarian vision of balancing work and home life (Carter, 1996). It is the premise of this paper that although women have made strides in developing their autonomy, they frequently do not feel that they share an equal partnership with men. Statistical evidence (Napier, 1990; Heyn, 1997; Applewhite, 1997) in this feminist era, suggests that women are unhappy with the state of their intimate relationships. For example, 50% of first marriages end in divorce (65% of second marriages) and close to three-quarters of these divorces are initiated by women (Napier, 1990). Furthermore, married women constitute the most depressed segment of the population (Heyn, 1997). They have higher rates of depression than single women, single men, and married men. Some reasons why will be discussed. Despite the above-mentioned changes in society and attitudes about roles, there still exists inequality between the sexes in their closest times. Next, will be discussed how this inequality negatively affects romantic relationships and keeps couples from engaging in true intimacy. Finally, ways that men, women, and society can remedy the situation and enhance fulfillment in love will be suggested.

Striving for Equality

111

WHY MEN HAVE DIFFICULTY GIVING UP MALE PRIVILEGE

Mens reactions to the sex-role revolution vary. Some support the Womens Movement and welcome the opportunity to reexamine the patriarchal system. Many have an increased interest in exploring feelings and improving communication skills. Men, with greater participation in childcare, realize the joy of parenting never experienced by their fathers (Philpot, Brooks, Lusterman, & Nutt, 1997). Conversely, large numbers still think the change in womens roles is an affront and react with angry withdrawal or hostility. Others feel confused and victimized by feminist rhetoric (Philpot et al., 1997). A group remain relatively apathetic to the abstract, ideological goals of both the womens and the mens movements (Brooks, 1995). Why would men not be reluctant to become equal partners with women since losing patriarchal norms threatens their dominance (Slipp, 1996). Many view all relationships as based on the hierarchical power dynamics of dominance and submission and thus see equality as subordinance (Brooks & Silverstein, 1995). Certain men have been raised in homes where the role model for male identification was a father who was powerful, privileged, and distant (Slipp, 1996). These men can find it difficult to give up control, share power, or to be emotionally close to others. Performing household and childcare functions that were, since their childhood, considered feminine and inferior, represents a loss of self, status, and power. In partnerships where men hold those ideas, considerable conflict arises over who does the shopping, housekeeping, and childcare. Recent surveys indicate that women still do most homemaking activities even when employed (The American Woman, 19901991). When husbands fail to see the equality desired as an aspect of true partnership, they may feel insecure if wives state such needs and desires. These requests are perceived instead as bids to negatively reverse the power structure, with the wife being dominant (Slipp, 1996).

GENDER IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT

Mens desire to maintain a position of power probably has preoedipal, Oedipal, as well as biological and evolutionary determinants (Slipp, 1996; Fisher, 1999). An unconscious fear of power reversal may occur because men in intimate relationships may reactivate their childhood images as young boys under their mothers domination. Primitive anxieties about engulfment or abandonment may also be revived (Slipp, 1996). Some state testoterone relates to the urge to be aggressively in charge and dominant (Fisher, 1999). Psychologists and anthropologists suggest as well that men are genetically programmed to be aggressive and dominant to ensure the survival of the species. Men are still driven by thousands of years of evolution and remember primitive impulses to defend, dominate, control, and suppress weak-

112

K. M. Rodman Aronson and E. S. Buchholz

ness. These traits may have been useful in earlier hostile environments, but they are not as beneficial in todays world, especially in close relationships (Rock & Duncan, 1998).

GENDER SOCIALIZATION
Current psychological theories on gender-role socialization shed further light on why it is so difficult for couples to change status in intimate relationships (Philpot et al., 1997). Men and women learn their respective roles through the process of socialization, which begins in infancy and continues throughout adulthood. After the era when both boy and girl babies were clothed in dresses, parents continued to restrict girls with ruffles and buy outfits in subdued colors, especially pink. Even today, adults play with and dress girl and boy babies differently (Huston, 1983). Boy babies are most likely to be handled roughly and played with aggressively. Girl babies are usually treated gently, even though biological evidence indicates that they are tougher and heartier than boy infants (Williams, 1987). Research by Gilligan (1982) and Chodorow (1978) illustrate that girls compared to boys are both kept closer to their mothers and more likely to be protected by parents. Boys are expected to separate and learn independence. The mother-daughter connection often provides an opportunity for the development of good relationship skills. Paradoxically, it may create disadvantages for girls and women in arenas demanding independence and self-esteem. Masculine role mandates, like autonomy, are extremely inflexible and deviations by boys generate more severe sanctions then do those of girls (Pleck, 1981) Girls are taught through fairy tales and modern media that if they look and act good, sweet, pretty, and basically passive, a male figurethe prince will rescue them from taking care of themselves. Although also socialized today to contemplate and pursue career interests, culture still emphasizes that woman are valued for appearances. Witness magazine articles and the ever-rising sales of Barbie dolls! Gender differences are strongly accentuated in adolescence. As dating behaviors increase, girls are recommended to pay attention to appearance to gain social popularity. In contrast, adolescent boys struggle to achieve status and prove their manhood. They do this through vigorous, and often dangerous, rites of passage. Fighting, sports, sexual activity, risk-taking, and alcohol-use are commonly seen as activities signifying virility (Gilmore, 1990). Today, a large segment of male adolescents do not have male adults to serve as role models. Then concepts of what constitutes masculinity are often rigid and stereotyped, and frequently based on media presentation. In contrast, sons were recently found to be particular benefactors of active fathering (Williams & Radin, 1999). Emphasis on relationships in womens lives and external achievement

Striving for Equality

113

in mens lives grows with adulthood. Males are expected to put an extraordinary amount of time into selecting a career to establish their identity (Levinson, 1978). As they enter the adult world, young men take with them the competitive view of life learned as children. Most men are conditioned to the role of good provider (Bernard, 1981), in which their entirety becomes equated with the amount of money they make. Thus, for many young men, career success rises above all else. Although more women than before are encouraged to develop independence, many are strongly socialized to prioritize marriage and family first (Russianoff, 1981). Despite the fact that women are expected to obtain an education, pursue a career, and raise a family simultaneously, they continue to be judged primarily by looks and success in mating (Wolf, 1990).

THE EFFECTS OF GENDER SOCIALIZATION

Due to gender socialization, men and women inhabit two separate cultures, often in conflict with one another. Philpot et al. (1997) state the following:
Sex-role messages received throughout a lifetime result in the genders having different values, different personality characteristics, different styles of communication, different problem-solving techniques, different perspectives on sexuality, and different expectations for relationships.

Of course, there is much overlap between the sexes, but rigid gender-role socialization does lead men and women to emphasize and favor separate aspects of experience. Individual perceptions create major misunderstandings and miscommunications as well as severe disappointment from the failure of each gender to meet the others expectations (Tannen, 1990; Gray, 1992). Problems that clients bring to couples therapy are frequently rooted in disparate experiences of gender socialization.

AUTONOMY AND CONNECTION

In large measure, the effect of gender socialization is to develop men too concerned about autonomy and women overly reliant on connection. Psychological theories of development in this culture overemphasized the role of autonomy in human development. Maturity was viewed in the mid20th century (Mahler, 1975) as steps taken to achieve the greatest degree of individuation and autonomy from early attachment figures. Within this concept of mental health, the male model of independence and differentiation represented wellness and did not require psychological help or intervention. Women were perceived as overly dependent and emotional, and, therefore, most in need of therapeutic assistance. Recent self-in-relation models of development maintain, however, (Jordan, Kaplan, Miller, Stiver, & Surrey,

114

K. M. Rodman Aronson and E. S. Buchholz

1991) a view of development not in the context of autonomy. While a womans need for connection was traditionally viewed as a childlike dependency and overemotionality, current relational theories acknowledge that a need for connection represents strength in the quest for psychological health. Of course, men and women equally need to feel both connected to others and able to function autonomously. A problem arises when the need for autonomy and connection are exaggerated in a gendered stereotypical manner or seen as mutually exclusive in intimate relationships (Buchholz, 1997). When men emphasize autonomy to such a degree that they are afraid to connect, both partners suffer from a lack of intimacy. Emphasizing the development of a strong sense of self is beneficial, but unless balanced by an acknowledgment of ones requisite for closeness, men (or women) can appear selfish, narcissistic, and oblivious of other peoples needs (Philpot et al., 1997). Alternately, a womans inclination to put so much importance in connections can push others away or put the burden of relationship maintenance on their shoulders. Women sometimes become selfless in efforts to keep those they are involved with happy. A womans tendency in heterosexual relationships to subsume personal needs to wishes of husband and family has not led to better mental health for women (McGrath, 1992) or anyones (see Arthur Millers Death Of A Salesman). Pittman (1985) described the role of femininity as teaching women to give power to men to act in their behalf. Difficulties occur when one gender is expected and trained to be dominant and one to be submissive (Hare-Musten, 1978). Philpot et al. (1997) note the following:
The dominant one will tend to be egocentric and controlling, whereas the non-dominant one will be overly sensitive to the affect, needs, and behavior of the dominant partner to the detriment of personal needs and growth.

One result of the womens movement is the rejection of the subservient role by many women who desire a committed relationship with men. Because equality would be impossible with a stereotypical man who expects his wife to defer to him, characteristics of individuals have also changed. Frank Pittman (1985) noted the following changes:
Not too long ago, the gender issues that came into therapy involved people who did not live up completely to their gender stereotype. Today, however, women who are totally and inflexibly feminine are called passive dependent or hysterical, while men who live up to the traditional masculine ideals and are afraid to move beyond them might be called workaholic or obsessive compulsive or even psychopathic. We may well have reached the point in which pure masculinity or femininity are considered pathological (p. 26).

Striving for Equality

115

MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH GENDER SOCIALIZATION

As might be expected, traditional socialization messages exert a cost on mental health. Hare-Mustin (1983) writes the following:
The demands of traditional sex roles lead to more emotional problems for women then men. Certain aspects of womens sex roles may influence the development of mental illness, such as holding in negative feelings, behaving to satisfy a male partner over oneself, passivity, learned helplessness, exaggerated femininity, and other directedness.

Women raised to please men and to accommodate the wishes of others may become too empathictoo good and too willing to lose a sense of their own needs and entitlements. More so than their male counterparts, women measure their self-worth through the success or failure of their relationships, and they can feel obligated to preserve a bond even of it exacts a terrible personal cost. Violence against women is seen by some (Goldner, Penn, Sheinberg, & Walker, 1990) as a result of the power imbalance between men and women in a patriarchal society, and gender socialization plays a major role in the incidence and perpetuation of domestic violence. Prevalent problems associated with an unyielding adherence to male sex-role stereotypes include skill deficits in adult mens ability to identify, express, and describe their feelings, particularly those of caring, warmth, sadness, or pain. Traditionally, men from earliest childhood learn to be independent, emotionally unexpressive, and goal-oriented. The result is that by adulthood many men are so emotionally numb (Levant, 1995) that they may be unsure even if they are reacting emotionally. Since they cannot detect their emotions, how can they sense and respond to other peoples feelings? Thus, some men fall into a position of defensive autonomy (Levant, 1995), in which they expect caretaking while they keep their need for dependency unconscious. They assume that it is their partners job to cater to them, without reciprocation. The one emotion males typically are allowed to express is anger. Many of the emotions theyre not allowed to express get transformed into anger which too easily turns into rage and too often spills out as violence (Levant, 1995). Levant adds, Some of that violence gets directed at other men, but most of it gets directed at women, to whom men unconsciously look to minister to their needs and who they are quick to punish when things dont go their way (Levant, 1995). Having learned in childhood that to be masculine means to separate (from mother/women), many men also find intimacy threatening. They may defend themselves against emotional closeness by building defenses that seem narcissistic, unfeeling, and nonrelational. Men who deeply fear intimacy, and who suppress or deny tender emotions, may completely separate

116

K. M. Rodman Aronson and E. S. Buchholz

sex from intimacy and view women primarily as sex objects. A man who is not emotionally skilled or emotionally intelligent (Levant, 1995) will have problems creating and sustaining deep relationships with everyone in their lives.

DYSFUNCTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS AND GENDER-ROLE SOCIALIZATION

As stated, many problems that bring couples to counseling are products of rigid socialization. For example, male violence towards women can germinate from patriarchal ideals. Some men who batter women come from dysfunctional families in which violence, abuse, or exaggerated patriarchal norms prevailed. Many victims also come from families with an excessively patriarchal structure (Goldner, Penn, Sheinberg, & Walker, 1990). When paired, the couple often accepts that men be permitted to dominate, and aspirations or attempts by women for independence are aberrations. Buchholz (1997) states that sometimes violence in a relationship occurs because the abuser is unable to self-regulate:
The abuser really wants self-control. In the case of abusing another, domination is believed to be the way to restore an inner control. Abusers are actually caught in feelings of helplessness, searching not for a relationship but for an undemanding supporter and even confidant... (Buchholz, 1997, p. 265).

This theory is compatible with others that depict violence as a defensive measure used to deflect feelings that seem unmanly. Dependency, fear, sadness, and pain are unacceptable emotions that do not fit traditional gender premises about masculinity (Goldner et al., 1990). Both verbal and physical abuse are often based on a mans need to control and subordinate. They are used as a defense against experiencing dependency. Simultaneously, they undermine the womans self-esteem and make her more manageable.

CHALLENGING TRADITIONAL GENDER STEREOTYPES

Neither men nor women can work at self-development if they live their lives in accordance with rigid gender-role socialization. A woman cannot become individuated if she suppresses the need for autonomous striving; and likewise, a mans individuation is limited if he suppresses the need for connection. The reality is that men and women have the capacity to adopt all human values and attributes, whether those values have been socially defined as masculine or feminine. Both women and men need connection to others. They both need to feel that they have a measure of control over their lives

Striving for Equality

117

and a sense of independent functioning. Men and women want to feel competent and empowered, but they also have a desire to safely express their vulnerabilities and fears. For a fulfilling life, both sexes must be able to call upon attributes that have been stereotypically associated with the other gender (Philpot et al., 1997).

HOW SOCIETY CONTRIBUTES TO MAINTAINING INEQUALITY BETWEEN THE SEXES

A look at the larger system shows how our society and workplaces do not allow marriages to be equal. Because our society values earnings over homemaking, it is difficult to maintain the idea of equality in a relationship if the man supports the woman. Carter (1996) believes that many couples backslide into traditional sex roles as soon as their children are born. Women cut back at work, quit, or play superwomen because they are automatically the ones in charge of children. Meanwhile, men toil even more to be a good provider (Carter, 1996). While some couples are able to maintain their equality in a traditional breadwinner-homemaker arrangement and some women feel a gain of freedom in stopping work, many relationships in our capitalistic society are governed by the adage whoever makes the money, rules the roost. Partly because of economics and partly because of the womens movement, the majority of women are now in the workplace. Carter (1996) believes that our society has allowed women to do two jobs, if they can manage them both, but has pressured men to keep doing only one. Social policies and businesses do not offer paid leave with the birth of a child or a medical emergency. Childcare is expensive and often of uneven quality. There are limited afterschool programs and no coverage on school holidays. Our frenetic society overvalues money, and money means work and time away from home and mate.

HOW MEN AND WOMEN CAN CHANGE TO PROMOTE EQUALITY

Everyone suffers to the extent that their lives are limited by rigid gender roles. Because society is not bending to support couples changing needs, families are paying a high price in overwork, alienation, and divorce. If society valued the day-to-day workings of family life, it would be easier to get men involved and to obtain legislation that supports family needs. The more women learn to translate their personal needs into political action, the more public policy will reflect family values that support children and their parents (Carter, 1996). Couples must make a conscious effort to reject the money-equals-power equation or earnings will be inseparable from power. If men increase their

118

K. M. Rodman Aronson and E. S. Buchholz

willingness to share power with their partners, a more equal relationship is possible. Sociologists Pepper Schwartz and Philip Blumstein (1983) found that lesbian couples were less likely to use money to dominate and often make a conscious effort to keep their relationships free of any form of domination, especially if it derives from something as impersonal as money. (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983). The same sociologists found that among all couples, partners who feel they have equal control over how money is spent have more tranquil relationships (1983).

CHANGES MEN NEED TO MAKE

Besides being willing to share power over childcare as well as money with partners, relationships could benefit from including in masculinity such traits as nurturing, caretaking, and emotional sharing. Anthropology shows paternal care as a preprogrammed variable. When men allow themselves and are allowed to share the emotional burdens of a relationship, inevitably intimacy develops. Being opened to emotions paves the way to receiving the kind of emotional support that comes from friendship. Levant (1995) believes that men want intimacy and connection as much as women do, but they have not learned how to foster those qualities as well. He believes that men can no longer afford to leave the bulk of nurturing the relationship to women. They too need to develop emotional skills required to foster closeness and add to their share in relationships. Then they will become emotionally intelligent men (Levant, 1995). Levant also writes that as a man frees himself from the traditional belief that he must sacrifice himself to his job (which often leads to workaholism), the more available he will be to his wife and children. The emotionally intelligent man is aware of the way that both sexes are impaired by traditional gender role training and strives not to impose these rules on his children. He will encourage equally his daughters self-sufficiency and his sons nurturing capabilities (Levant, 1995). In a longitudinal study by Kyle Pruett at Yale Child Study Center (Pruett, 1989), both fathers and mothers remained involved in child rearing, and both had an opportunity for self-fulfillment in their careers. This study found that girls and boys raised this way appeared to have a complete personality development, without negative effects on their gender identity. At 10 years of age, all children in the study enjoyed nurturing babies, but were also interested in work activities. This is adaptive to modern life as it is evolving. Since the traditional nuclear family is now a minority in the U.S., and families in which both adults work are the rule, parents need to share household and childrearing responsiblities. This especially moves male gender roles into a less rigid, more cooperative, and friendlier place. In a 1991 study, Barnett and Marshall found that a man most satisfied in his role as a father was more likely to be in good physical health. In another study (1991) Barnett, Marshall, and Pleck found that satisfaction with both

Striving for Equality

119

the role of father and husband were predictors of male psychological wellbeing. Levant reports other studies which find that
a mans physical and mental well-being is significantly affected by the quality of his family relationships, which is significantly affected in turn by his capacity for intimacy: his ability to experience and express his feelings and needs and to be sensitive and responsive to other peoples feelings and needs (Levant, 1995, p. 229).

The Boston University Pregnancy and Parenthood Project (Grossman, 1980) found that men often learned good parenting skills from their wives with whom they came to identify. This learning increased mens empathy for womens nurturing capabilities and also helped to undo much of the trauma that caused men initially to create distance from women. When men were able to value and identify with what women do in their nurturing roles, some of the unconscious fears about being dependent on women or being like women were diminished (Betcher & Pollack, 1993). The BUPP study also found that successful fathering and marital satisfaction were most related to maintaining a balance between affiliation and autonomythat is, between solid connections to significant others and self-focused achievement. These findings stand in stark contrast to a more traditional view that pits autonomy as opposite to affiliation (Betcher & Pollack, 1993). Inequity remains; nevertheless, some norms have shifted: Now men are more often expected to participate in childrearing (Stacey, 1990) Multiple role involvement benefits both men and women (Barnett & Baruch, 1987; Barnett et al., 1992). Women benefit by increasing their self-esteem, enhancing their economic independence, and having better physical and mental health. Men benefit from multiple role involvement by increasing their emotional involvement and bonding with their children, having better overall health, and lower levels of psychological distress.

CHANGES WOMEN NEED TO MAKE

Many women without realization still enter marriage accepting the traditional wife and mothering role. They take the responsibility to emotionally maintain the relationship and even help men perpetuate the myth of masculine autonomy by not acknowledging the degree to which their mate is emotionally dependent. Assuming mens inability to deal with closeness means that a woman does not expect her husband to be as connected to the children as she is. If women accepted a sharing of control, however, and that tradition means two parents and thus two people responsible for raising children, the situation would be open to change. Women are expected, more often then men, to accommodate and adapt to their husbands and families. Although they struggle to connect with husbands and support marriage without losing themselves in the process, unfor-

120

K. M. Rodman Aronson and E. S. Buchholz

tunately, for many women marriage becomes oppressive. They end up sacrificing so much of their identity to become an idealized version of the perfect wife (Heyn, 1997). This loss of self often leads to depression for women in marriage and forestalls any kind of honest relationship between two authentic individuals. When New Woman Magazine polled 4,000 married readers in 1995, editor Stephanie Von Hirschberg reported that more than half of women in bad marriages mourn a lost sense of self. Von Hirschberg also reported that When asked to pick the worst thing about their marriages, a large porportion of these women said not being who I really am. They are more likely to say, they play the role of the perfect wife than women in happy marriages. In the same poll by New York Magazine, it was found that women in egalitarian marriages, defined as both spouses in work full-time with more or less equal sharing of domestic chores and childcare, are by far the happiest. Endless self-sacrifice does not lead to love. Paradoxically, to ask for more is what develops a relationship and a mature marriage of real mutuality. Women need to redefine goodness to mean what is good for wives, not what is good in wives (Heyn, 1997) Instead of giving in to their husbands desires as a matter of course, or expecting husbands to magically intuit their desires, wives need to articulate what they want. This means not thinking this is selfish or bitchy behavior. It means learning and daring to express feelings both loving and murderous (Heyn, 1997). A happy relationship is a mutual connection, not a one-way benefaction. Partners need to learn how to negotiate so that they each get enough of what they need to hold on to their identities. Men must be willing to open themselves up to share power and the women must insist on being heard and relinquishing some control of children (Carter, 1996).

RAISING BOYS AND GIRLS

Research clearly shows that differences between the sexes exist, whether they are due to socialization, biology, or both (Fausto-Sterling, 1985; Gilligan, 1982; Tannen, 1990). There is also a great deal of overlap, with a common ground for understanding and acceptance, without blame and criticism. In keeping with this, many parents have made dramatic changes in the way they raise girls. They are far likelier to encourage them to take work seriously, to aspire to a profession that interests them, to be financially and psychologically independent, and not to view themselves solely as future wives and mothers (Miedzian, 1991). When it comes to boys, it seems that many parents are less ready to make appropriate changes in their child-rearing philosophy.
Many parents are still raising boys to be tough, dominant, and lacking in empathy. Theres a reluctance to encourage caring and sensitivity. Parents

Striving for Equality

121

are afraid those qualities will make boys soft. Underlying it all is the fear of homosexuality. Thats the source of a lot of parental decisions, like not letting boys play with dolls unless theyre violent action figures (Miedzian, 1991).

Miedzian further asserts that theres more tolerance of aggression in boys (whereas there should be less) because males are inherently more aggressive. We need to tame our boys and embolden our girls, but we tend to do the exact opposite (Miedzian, 1991). In order to encourage empathy in their sons, Miedzian suggests that parents start by confronting their own double standards. They can encourage their sons to be nurturing in the same way they exclaim to their daughters when theyre playing with a doll, what a nice mommy you are! If parents see their son playing with a doll in a similarly nurturing way, they should exclaim what a nice daddy youll make! The traits our culture encourages in boysindependence, self-reliance, strength, and competitivenessare those most linked to success in our society. It is, therefore, crucial that girls acquire similar characteristicsjust as boys must cultivate such feminine virtues as kindness and sensitivity. The ultimate goal is to have children of both sexes experience the gamut of options for all positive qualities. I dont think we want girls to become boys or boys to become girls. We want both to become full human beings (Miedzian, 1991).

IMPLICATIONS FOR MARITAL THERAPY

Some writers predict that with the coming of the new millennium people all over the world may become more spiritually attuned (Zukav, 1989; Redfield, 1993). While the past several centuries have been dominated by patriarchy and a desire to control the environment through technological advancement and scientific achievements, it is thought by some that if we continue to seek external power over other humans and the environment, we will place ourselves at risk of destroying each other and the earth (Zukav, 1989) Similarly, marriages see a shift. The unequal partnerships that existed under patriarchy are moving towards a more spiritually attuned partnership between equals. In a spiritual partnership, the couple commit to mutual spiritual growth rather than to physical survival or security and comfort (Zukav, 1989). Spiritual psychology can be incorporated into marital therapy by helping a couple to look at the spiritual forces that brought them together. From a spiritual perspective we are souls as well as personalities, and we are here on earth in order to evolve our souls (Rabbi Berg, 1984; Zukav, 1989). The partnerships that we choose serve a purpose to evolve our souls, and our challenge is to become more conscious of the meaning our relationships hold for us. In this view, couples therapy will assist each partner to become

122

K. M. Rodman Aronson and E. S. Buchholz

more conscious of themselves as individuals and the reasons they were brought together to become a couple. According to spiritual believers, there are no accidents in the world and one forms partnerships with particular people in order to learn lessons in this lifetime (Rabbi Berg, 1984). Included in the goals of spiritual/marital therapy are to help couples become aware of why they were brought together, what lessons they need to learn, and how they can create a more conscious relationship. Gender-sensitive psychotherapies can also help men and women become more empathic toward one another and realize that they both can be negatively affected by rigid gender socialization. The therapist helps the couple realize that the inflexibility of gender roles can stifle emotional growth and undermine an equal partnership. For gender-sensitivity therapy to be effective, clients must be encouraged to adopt a nonblaming, flexible, and empathic attitude toward one another. Educated to the outmoded gender messages they have been socialized with, each may come to adopt qualities such as affiliation and autonomy, cooperation and competition, control and nurturance, and reason and emotion (Philpot et al., 1997).

CONCLUSION
Gender inequality in relationships between men and women still exists in this society. Even though men are both pushed and willing to redefine their gender roles and women are provided with new and different opportunities, there appears to be lag in overall acknowledgment that roles are changing (Carter, 1996). No doubt this is partially because a shift of power is called for which interferes with long-held visions. Nevertheless, Western societies are moving in the direction of establishing more egalitarian relationships between the sexes, because women in large numbers are insisting upon it and men are beginning to enjoy expanded roles within families. As women become more independent and bring their unique skills and strengths into the market place, they desire men to acquire more of the emotional skills and nurturing qualities that help relationships flourish and many men are responding favorably. Men and women today need to learn to satisfy their dual needs for connection and autonomy in order to achieve more balance and flexibility in their complicated lives and relationships. By becoming more open to the masculine and the feminine within themselves and each other, the sexes will begin to increase the potential for a harmonious existence. Balance in work and family life cannot flourish, however, unless social policies and businesses provide support for families and children. Just as individuals push for the inner change, they must continue to insist on these outer changes as well.

Striving for Equality

123

REFERENCES
Applewhite, A. (1997). Cutting loose: Why women who end their marriages do so well. New York: Harper Collins. Barnett, R. C., Marshall, N., & Pleck, J. (1992). Mens multiple roles and the relationship to mens psychological stress. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 348367. Betcher, R., & Pollack, W. (1993). In a time of fallen heroes. New York: The Guilford Press. Rabbi Berg. (1984). Reincarnation: Wheels of a soul. New York: The Kabbalah Learning Centre. Buchholz, E. (1997). The call of solitude: Alonetime in a world of attachment. New York: Simon and Schuster. Carter, B. (1996). Love, honor and negotiate: Building partnerships that last a lifetime. New York: Pocket Books. Fisher, H. (1999). The first sex: The natural talents of women and how they are changing the world. New York: Random House. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and womens development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Goldner, V., Penn, P., Sheinberg, M., & Walker, G. (1990). Love and violence: Gender paradoxes in volatile relationships. Family Process, 29, 342364. Hare-Mustin, R. T. (1978). A feminist approach to family therapy. Family Process, 17, 181194. Heyn, D. (1997). Marriage shock: The transformation of women into wives. New York: Villard. Levant, R. (1995). Masculinity reconstructed. New York: Dutton. Levant, R., & Pollack, W. (1995). A new psychology of men. New York: Basic Books. Levinson, D., Danow, C., Klein, E., Levinson, M., & Mckee, B. (1978). The seasons of a mans life. New York: Knopf. McGrath, E. (1992). When feeling bad is good. New York: Henry Holt and Company. Miedzian, M. (1991). Boys will be boys: Breaking the link between masculinity and violence. New York: Anchor Books. Napier, A. (1990 ). The fragile bond: In search of an equal, intimate, and enduring marriage. New York: Harper Perennial. Philpot, C., Brooks, G., Lusterman, D. D., & Nutt, R. (1997). Bridging separate gender worlds. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Pittman, F. (1985). Gender myths: When does gender become pathology? Family Therapy Networker, 9, 2433. Pleck, J. H. (1981). The myth of masculinity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Redfield, J. (1993). The celestine prophecy. New York: Warner Books. Rock, J., & Duncan, B. (1998). Lets face it, men are @$$#%\*$. Deerfield Beach, FL: Communications, Inc. Russianoff, P. (1981). Why do I think I am nothing without a man? Toronto, ON, Canada: Bantam Books. Schwartz, P. (1994). Peer marriage: How love between equals really works. New York: Free Press. Slipp, S. (1996). Healing the gender wars: Therapy with men and couples. New Jersey, London: Jason Aronson Inc.

124

K. M. Rodman Aronson and E. S. Buchholz

Williams, E., & Radin, N. (1999). Effects of father participation in child rearing: Twenty-year follow up. American Orthopsychiatry, 69(3); 328336. Zukav, G. (1989). The seat of the soul. New York: Fireside.