Marriage Without Sexism

Via Belle Waring, an interesting NYT article on what we can learn from looking at same-sex marriages:

Notably, same-sex relationships, whether between men or women, were far more egalitarian than heterosexual ones. In heterosexual couples, women did far more of the housework; men were more likely to have the financial responsibility; and men were more likely to initiate sex, while women were more likely to refuse it or to start a conversation about problems in the relationship. With same-sex couples, of course, none of these dichotomies were possible, and the partners tended to share the burdens far more equally.

While the gay and lesbian couples had about the same rate of conflict as the heterosexual ones, they appeared to have more relationship satisfaction, suggesting that the inequality of opposite-sex relationships can take a toll.

That's about the result you would expect once you stop to consider the issue, but it's not something I'd really given thought to previously. Of course it's going to be difficult to get a truly apples-to-apples comparison here since same-sex couples are going to vary in some other demographic directions. Serious biological determinsts are going to say that heterosexual couples just can't be as egalitarian as gay or lesbian couples would, but count me as very skeptical that the differences here are all in the genes rather than the longstanding social norms. One could, presumably, look in detail at the differences between lesbian couples and gay male couples to gain some further insights.

My assumption is that as committed same sex couples become more visible, their egalitarian-by-necessity example will start to have more social and cultural influence. And of course it'll be interesting to see what happens as children raised by same-sex couples grow up.

Comments

My husband noted this with friends of ours--you have to divvy up the work, and most long-partnered people start doing that by inclination/ability according to basic microeconomics, but for same sex couples there's no societal norm to answer who cooks and who mows. (I cook because I like to, my husband mows because I have asthma.) I do the financial stuff that involves being organized, he does the stuff that involves a willingness to tackle lengthy forms. For the first few years we were married we traded the financial stuff back and forth, but it just makes sense for each to specialize in what they're better at.

One trend I've noticed is that same sex couples rearing children tend to adopt one full-time-or-more job, one parent at home or with a flexible job. The dual jobs that allow a perfect my-work:spouse's-work:family balance are rare indeed; one person accepting less money for more flexibility is a very American choice.

So far, studies of those raised by same-sex couples show them to be just like everyone else, except more likely to have been open to dating both sexes, which would make sense. (Not any more likely to be gay or straight, but more likely to be open to a crush or romance outside their orientation.)

Posted by Deborah | June 11, 2008 12:28 PM

That article does not clearly distinguish between two situations: a) both individuals in the relationship equally share all work; and b) both individuals perform different work, but the differences in assignments cannot be ascribed to sex since they're both the same sex. In my anecdotal experience, it's very common for one person to assume the role of "the wife", regardless of his sex or her partner's sex.

Posted by phil | June 11, 2008 12:44 PM

Prediction: someday data will show us that male homosexual couples have more sex and female homosexual couples spend more time talking about their problems. I blame society.

Posted by Rob Mac | June 11, 2008 12:51 PM

Serious biological determinsts are going to say that heterosexual couples just can't be as egalitarian as gay or lesbian couples would, but count me as very skeptical that the differences here are all in the genes rather than the longstanding social norms.

They're obviously not all in the genes, but some of them are. Only women can get pregnant and give birth, so to the extent that that difference undermines egalitarian marriage the overall effect is going to be bigger for hetero couples than gay ones. And if, as seems likely, there are biological differences between men and women in talents and inclinations that influence the division of labor and income between the partners in a marriage, that's going to have a bigger effect on hetero marriages too.

Posted by Mixner | June 11, 2008 12:56 PM

That's one way of putting it.

Another way is that one person's "egalitarianism" is that people have no particular or special roles to play in family life.

And if a lesbian couple is just as good as, nay, better, in functioning to raise children, why should dad stick around*? Why not have mom move in with grandma or Aunt Sue? That way, the household will be run in an egalitarian manner rather than cultural norms imposed by the patriarchy.

*Of course, dad should stick around because he has a responsibility to do so. But not all dads today are accepting that responsibility, so I'm not so sure that wielding the stick of calling them irresponsible will be sufficient motivation.

Posted by JohnMcG | June 11, 2008 1:14 PM

Re phil's point, when one of my friend's (female) was in grad school her group met with recently-doctored people to talk about adjusting to post-docs or other work, and the common consensus was that, regardless of gender, it would really help if you could find a wife. Meaning that person who takes care of all the details that make life run smoothly--not so much a cook as someone who would ensure there was food in the house to cook with all week, and that getting together with friends on Saturday happened, and the plumbing would somehow get fixed. This wasn't about gender but about the life you can have when you work obsessive hours.

Posted by Deborah | June 11, 2008 1:21 PM

I have only anecdotal evidence from the relationships of my gay friends but I would argue that even in gay relationships gender matters. Relationships between two men or two women appear to be very different from one another. It isn't just that the jobs are assigned more equitably but also that the very jobs themselves are very different.

Do gay men eat out more/less than lesbians? If so then doing the shopping/cooking/cleaning is very different in the different households. Is one type of relationship (two men, two women, one-of-each) more likely to rent or own the residence? If so the yard work/maintenance/home finance issues are also different... We are really looking at three, not two, different types of relationships.

Posted by sven | June 11, 2008 1:44 PM

And if a lesbian couple is just as good as, nay, better, in functioning to raise children, why should dad stick around*?

Umm, for the same reason most dads "stick around" already, because they love their wives and children. Duh.

Posted by Phaedrus | June 11, 2008 1:50 PM

Umm, for the same reason most dads "stick around" already, because they love their wives and children. Duh.

Let's unpack that a little.

If we think of "love" as warm feelings, that comes and goes.

If we think of "love" as a verb, of acting in another's interest, then the statement is a tautology. Dads sticking around is part of what it means to love them.

But why love them? Well, as I said, probably because of warm feelings and a sense of responsibility.

Still, not all dads follow through on that. And telling them that the only distinct thing they bring to the metaphorical family table is a legacy of patriarchal oppression probably won't lead to more of them following through.

Posted by JohnMcG | June 11, 2008 2:01 PM

I can only speak for my own long term relationahip of seven years, but my ex-partner and I would split household tasks based on a combination of interest and willingness, rather than any established concept of gender roles.

I took care of all the finances and retirement planning, the cats and the dog, a lot of household maintenance, and the bathrooms. He took care of the computers and the electronics, the vacuuming and cleaning of the bedroom, office, living room.

We each took care of our own medical appointments and car maintenance, split the kitchen duties, did our own laundry. We collaborated on the social calendar and on the furniture/interiors and major purchases.

And we both refused to iron.

Posted by Jay C | June 11, 2008 2:26 PM

But why love them? Well, as I said, probably because of warm feelings and a sense of responsibility.

You're mixing the order up. If you love someone, you'll want to act in a responsible fashion towards them. But this is beside the point anyway, which is really:

Still, not all dads follow through on that. And telling them that the only distinct thing they bring to the metaphorical family table is a legacy of patriarchal oppression probably won't lead to more of them following through.

I'm quite certain it won't lead to less of them following through, that's for sure. Either you love your family and want to be with them or you don't. If knowing about the patriarchal legacy of marriage somehow makes someone no longer care about their wife and kids, well, then they're kind of a reprehensible person, and their family is better off without them.

Posted by Phaedrus | June 11, 2008 2:52 PM

Phaedrus,

You are speaking from a sugary saccharine unrealistic vision of love. Love is effort, and a decision, and not a decision that is made once, but is a decision made every day of one's life.

So if someone is getting up every morning, and then is told that really, he has a lot to learn from same sex couples and their egalitarian ways, he might come to a different decision that day.

This is not a morally defensible choice, but neither are any number of things that we try to build incentives against. It's easy for us to sit here and say their family's are better off without them, but we're not the ones who have to pick up the slack.

Posted by JohnMcG | June 11, 2008 3:04 PM

JohnMcG, if the father is so incompetent that he doesn't feel "useful" enough to give him a motivation to stay, wouldn't he also be motivated to leave knowing that his wife could marry a superior, more competent husband?

It seems what you're saying is that people need a sense of feeling superior to others, lest they lose all confidence in themselves. And if gays can be a target whipping-boy that some people can lord their sense of superiority over, then all the better.

But still, is there anything that could convince a man that there isn't some other man out there that could do as good a job as he could? Because by your logic, unless he believes that, he would have no motivation to stay.

Posted by Tyro | June 11, 2008 3:22 PM

Nobody needs a whipping boy, but people do need to feel like they are performing a useful, distinct role.

The message of posts like this are that same sex couples will show the way to a new, egalitarian version of couplehood that is freed from the legacy of the patriarchy.

To be clear, the man who responds to these cultural messages by opting out of his marital and parental obligations is making a morally bad choice. Nevertheless, I believe there are a number of men on the margins for this decision, and it would be a bad thing if they did in fact opt out.

Posted by JohnMcG | June 11, 2008 3:38 PM

Love is effort, and a decision, and not a decision that is made once, but is a decision made every day of one's life.

Never said it wasn't effort. Just that if you're so threatened that just maybe a same-sex couple (or any couple, or another man, as Tyro points out) might be doing something better than you that this causes you to not want to put in the effort... Well again, you're (not "you", but our hypothetical father) pretty reprehensible. If it wasn't this thing, it would be another thing. You don't really care enough about your family, and that's not going to change no matter how many same-sex couples you are or are not exposed to.

What's truly amusing to me is that your argument seems to be that we should prevent same-sex couples from having functional relationships because just maybe that might give a dysfunctional hetero couple the pretext they need to break up. Umm, ok.

Really I'm being more generous here than I want to be, because when presented with the idea that I'm going to dump my girlfriend because just maybe there's a same-sex couple out there that does a better job of being egalitarian than us makes me want to laugh. I'm with her because I like her, and I don't like her any less because I know that the gay couple around the corner argues less about the dishes. Sheesh.

Posted by Phaedrus | June 11, 2008 3:44 PM

So what's an example of something biologically determined? For example, my husband jokes that his job around the house is to get things from high shelves and open jars. He gets those jobs because he can do them without "prosthetics" (ie I can do them too, but I need a ladder, or some complicated jar opening system). So he's taller and stronger than I am--biologically determined?

I do the taxes because I'm better at math--biologically determined, or a result of education?

I take care of the social calendar--biologically determined or did something cause him to become antisocial?

To me, our relationship seems quite egalitarian on most levels--we even make about the same amount of money, spend about the same amount of time working, spend the same amount of time taking care of the kids--do the same amount of housework--and honestly, the job and money equality makes the social equality come very easily. (We also have separate finances except for joint expenditures) There's no sense of artificiality to it. But is our situation really so unusual or is it just the carping of the media? I wonder?

I have considered doing a time study in our house to see just how the housework stacks up, but I'm sort of afraid that he actually does more and will hold that over my head for the next couple of years...

Posted by JMS | June 11, 2008 3:47 PM

JohnMcG, by your logic, a man might feel even now that his "useful, distinct role" could be supplanted by another man. How does that differ from being supplanted by grandma or Aunt Sue?

I have always suspected that one of the undercurrents of opposition to gay marriage comes from the fact that marriage is an "accomplishment" for some people. And it's true; you do get a fair number of social accolades from getting married. I can imagine that for some people, the idea of gays getting married is upsetting because, whatever your station in life, if you're a heterosexual, you can "own" marriage in a way that gays can't... so it's "something" you have that they don't, regardless of how much less successful you might be in other parts of your life. I'm not sure that the government should be involved in the "ego stroking via discrimination" business.

Posted by Tyro | June 11, 2008 3:48 PM

I haven't mentioned the government or any government action in my posts.

Tyro is taking things to an absurd conclusion. Rajon Rondo would probably be the first to admit that he is not the best point guard in the league, and that the Celtics would be just as good and perhaps better with any number of point guards from around the league.

But he does play an essential role on the Celtics, and if media commentary and commentary from his teammates downgraded his role and the role of a point guard generally, and people started talking about how perhaps the Celtics should learn some lessons from other teams that make do without a point guard, that would have an impact on performance.

---

I don't think this in itself is a reason to stop same sex marriage, and I think that horse is already out of the barn as it is.

But we do need to consider how not to throw babies out with the bath water.

Posted by JohnMcG | June 11, 2008 4:23 PM

This is quite possibly the most laughable article in the history of the New York Times. That Matt takes it seriously just shows he's a child.

Posted by Steve Sailer | June 11, 2008 4:31 PM

There's no indication in the article as to whether the article controlled for children. Adding children to a household greatly increases the amount of domestic work and stress on the adults. Unless you compare childless straight couples to childless gay couples, and straight couples with children to gay couples with the same number and approximate ages of children, you're not going to get useful results. You should also try to control for whether the children were planned for or whether they were 'accidental,' because a child that is not strongly wanted by one or both parents is likely to put more stress on the relationship.

Because gay couples are less likely to have children than straight couples, and if they do have children are likely to have fewer children, and virtually never have unwanted children, the study results may simply be reflecting, or may in part be reflecting, the effects of children on relationships, gay or straight.

Posted by bloix | June 11, 2008 4:41 PM

they appeared to have more relationship satisfaction,

Whoa! Who knew??

I disagree with you that this stuff is so obvious, Matt.

There is a lot of crap / propaganda out there to the effect that homosexual people are messed-up people and that they often have messed-up relationships. I think it's interesting to find out that they often have more relationship satisfaction and that probably even a lot of homosexuals didn't realize it was so.

Posted by Swan | June 11, 2008 5:20 PM

Do gay men eat out more/less than lesbians?

Well....

Posted by Dilan Esper | June 11, 2008 7:04 PM

I might add that even in same-sex relationships, you can still have gender roles. See this, for instance:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/magazine/18wwln-Q4-t.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=cynthia+nixon&st=nyt&oref=slogin

Posted by Dilan Esper | June 11, 2008 7:10 PM

I hope they control for income, because I imagine that the gay couples tended to be wealthier and we all know rich marriages are happier marriages.

Posted by Kyle | June 11, 2008 8:22 PM

"My assumption is that as committed same sex couples become more visible, their egalitarian-by-necessity example will start to have more social and cultural influence."

This (& the very existence of the post), I think, is what the anti-SSM culture-war dead-enders mean by the otherwise inexplicable claim that beaming just-married couples kissing on the courthouse steps are in some way an assault on marriage. After all, a huge chunk of fundamentalism here is dedicated to strict and hierarchical gender & family (& social) roles. It's not just the parts not fitting they way they want, it's the people not fitting into the narrow roles, undermining their whole structure of order, authority, power, meaning, belonging, and use. For them, an egalitarian marriage (most obviously a same-sex one, but also a hetero one) is an attack on marriage (although they probably understand it slightly differently). See also John McG's comments about how if men don't get special manly man man-ness, why should they even bother?

See also the anti-choice movement. Surely there are some rank and filers who imagine it really is about saving the precious little (really, really little) baybees, and likewise some people who really, really just hate and fear women (and some who do both). But there's also more nuanced ways to understand it, esp. given how many of 'em are women. Christina Page (How the Pro-choice Movement Saved America) has pointed out that

"The only conclusion that this path leads to is one: The modern family is deeply offensive to the Christian right. The family structures in which we are living today, in which both parents are equal and they both bring home a living, they get to choose the number of children they have to what they can support and want -- that is offensive to the pro-life establishment. The whole reason why none of their programs are leading to fewer abortions is because that's simply not the point. The point isn't about abortion, it's about the family. It's about what the family looks like, it's about who's in it, who's leading it, who has the power, and who's the spiritual head."

Meanwhile, folks like Faye Ginsburg (Contested Lives:The Abortion Debate in an American Community) and Kristin Luker (Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood), writing in the 80s, argued that for women, activism (whether anti-abortion or pro-choice) is intimately tied into their life choices, values and resources. Pro-choice women value, have invested in (or can obtain) resources that are valuable in the world formerly known as male - income, specific interests, education, etc. They certainly can be mothers and wives, but they don't have to be, and don't just have to be. Anti-abortion women haven't/can't/don't (to oversimplify); therefore, they assert the primacy & value of women as reproducers and nurturers within a traditional division of labor (the resources they do have/are assigned), and work to reinforce this system by preventing other women from choosing differently. As Luker points out, in discussing how this impacts views about sexuality,

"Pro-choice women, therefore, value (and can afford) an approach to sexuality that, by sidelining reproduction, diminishes the difference between men and women: they can do this because they have other resources in which to build a marriage. . . .Pro-life [sic] women and men, by contrast, tend to live in 'separate spheres.' Because their lives are based on a social and emotional division of labor where each sex has its appropriate work, to accept contraception or abortion would devalue the one secure resource left to these women: the private world of home and hearth. This would be disastrous not only in terms of status but also in terms of meaning: if values about fertility and family are not essential to a marriage, what supports does a traditional family have in times of stress? . . . [emphasis in original]

Posted by Dan S. | June 11, 2008 11:32 PM

I've seen several gay couples duking it out in divorce court. The judge doesn't assign them gender roles and they don't naturally assume them - as many straight couples do.

(Teachers, doctors, lawyers, judges, psychiatrists give much greater initial credibility to women in custody disputes. Men are significantly more likely to be falsely imprisoned on domestic violence charges, with the requisite difficulties that pertain to DV false positives. Tender years doctrine still dominates in many states, giving women big advantages in custody disputes with young children. Men and women tend to have non-gender neutral ideas about how finances should be handled on breakup - often supported by the courts.)

Posted by Saam Barrager | June 12, 2008 3:30 AM

matt, nowhere in the article do they hit on genes or nature vs nurture topics. you are reading things into it that aren't there.

Posted by payscue | June 12, 2008 10:03 AM

Dan,

To paraphrase, cultural liberals support the separation of sex from children and child-raising, while cultural conservatives wish to retain it.

The old way certainly has some negative consequences, including the stigmatization of gays and the assumption that women were second class citizens.

But I don't think that cultural liberals have quite thought through all the consequences of their agenda, either.

It's a good thing that there are women in positions like Supreme Court Justice, Speaker of the House, Secretary of State, and a final three presidential candidate.

But we also have to be honest about the cost, and debate the trade-offs, rather than simply name-calling like your post does.

Posted by JohnMcG | June 12, 2008 11:29 AM

Dan S.

The problem with your clever thesis is that only about 5% of Americans oppose contraception, while a majority believes that most abortions, as they happen today, ought to be illegal.

Sadly for you, it really is about Life.

Posted by Hector | June 12, 2008 11:33 AM

I think a more charitable way to phrase DanS's point is that if the pro-choice movement is about separating sex and children, the pro-life movement is about separating a person's intrinsic value from his economic value.

Which isn't completely at odds with Dan's post. The consumer culture tied people's personal value to what they earned in work. Housewives didn't earn any outside money, and thus were not considered to have worth. So in order to have worth, women had to enter the workforce. In order to do that, they had to find a way to deal with unexpected pregnancies. And since unborn children don't earn anything, and are indeed a drag on their parents' earning potential, they do not have worth and can thus be aborted.

Obviously, this history is a little tidier than reality, and I'm not claiming that everything was just peachy until the Bad Comsumerist Culture cam along -- women didn't have the right to vote from the very beginning.

But in terms of what motivates me, it's not so much saving babies as babies, although what happens in abortion is pretty horrific, but in having a society where people's intrinsic worth as individuals is assumed rather than requiring proof.

Posted by JohnMcG | June 12, 2008 12:05 PM

"But in terms of what motivates me, it's not so much saving babies as babies . . . but in having a society where people's intrinsic worth as individuals is assumed rather than requiring proof.

Have to get to work; doubtful anyone still reading; ultra-short version:
Admirable goal (& one I share). Wrong movement. Yes, the anti-choice movement often does present (and surely understands) itself as being "about separating a person's intrinsic value from his economic value". (You def. should read Ginsburg's Contested Lives). However (among other problems, it's unavoidably rooted in 19thC. cult-of-domesticity ideology (run through a theological amplifier); the clash between economic and non-economic values is built in, not transcended. And of course, besides using women's bodies, future, and fertility as its battleground (as always), it merely replaces economic production (for women) as a measure of worth with reproduction as a measure of worth.

You should try the folks that actually support people having intrinsic worth, and being able to choose their own path through life; who support measures to help women (and men) whether they want to be workers, nurturers, or both. And that's not the anti-choice movement.

Posted by Dan S. | June 13, 2008 7:37 AM

In the wake of this controversy, McCain has reiterated his position on gay marriage: He's old-fashioned, he thinks marriage should be between a short man and a rich woman who hasn't been in a car accident.

Posted by Said Shirazi | June 15, 2008 5:41 AM