There’s a really fascinating article in the New York Times‘ health section by Tara Parker-Pope - accessed via Feministing:
For insights into healthy marriages, social scientists are looking in an unexpected place.
A growing body of evidence shows that same-sex couples have a great deal to teach everyone else about marriage and relationships. Most studies show surprisingly few differences between committed gay couples and committed straight couples, but the differences that do emerge have shed light on the kinds of conflicts that can endanger heterosexual relationships.
The findings offer hope that some of the most vexing problems are not necessarily entrenched in deep-rooted biological differences between men and women. And that, in turn, offers hope that the problems can be solved.
Aggregating a number of studies, the article suggests:
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.
At Feministing, Ann concludes:
Of course, the overall frame for the article — that same-sex couples are more equitable and therefore happier — is a generalization. There are egalitarian hetero relationships. There are queer relationships where gender roles come into play. The take-away lesson should simply be that with more equality — and with some breathing room from society’s expectations for our gender — we’re all a lot happier in relationships.
None of the gay or lesbian couples I know/have known had children. This could be a factor for great marital satisfaction or, sadly, marital dissatisfaction. The latter, presumably, as I don’t have kids, so I don’t really know. And I really like being single. So what positive/negative contributions might kids make to marital happiness. Looking at my friends I can see some of the positives.
I’m glad to see egalitarian ideas and the break-down of traditional gender roles finally being credited with making people happier.
As a member of a happy and successful heterosexual relationship (although strictly anti-marriage), I can definitely back the findings above that an egalitarian and non-gendered foundation is conducive to higher relationship satisfaction.
Very interesting post, Kim.
Thanks, Andos, though I’m just trying to draw attention to it so it didn’t have much input on my part.
I think having kids can be a factor in keeping couples together (and not always in a positive way), both gay and straight, because it is a shared experience and you presumably share hopes and goals in raising the children. Particularly one would think for gay couples, as they have had to make a deliberate decision to have children together, its not so likely to happen accidentally! However kids can put a lot more pressure on relationship through lack of sleep, compounding financial pressures, less opportunity for communication and time together etc.
I know many lesbian and gay couples who have been together for over a decade (or even over two decades) - with and without children. I’d say that most of the heterosexual couples I know who’ve been together a long time do show a degree of egality which is still, unfortunately, unusual in our culture.
When we became parents, I could completely assume that the practical work of looking after the baby would be shared, even with one of us in a job and the other at home. This is apparently still a source of tension in many het relationships.
It may well be that the Vermont study compared childless couples - that would be the obvious way to go as a researcher to control for other factors that may impact on a relationship outside those are common to het and same-sex couples - given that there would be a lot more straight couples with kids. I dunno, though, haven’t had time to chase up the journal article itself.
Comparing the wording of this paragraph with the one preceding it, it’s clear the link between egalitarianism and relationship satisfaction is something that the Times’ reporter concocted rather than something supported by the study. And it’s something that Feministing decides to claim as some greater truth:
The important message is the decoupling the assumptive link between biology of relationship behaviour, not judging the basis on which two people decide to form a partnership.
No, I don’t think it’s been “concocted by the reporter”, Desipis.
Here’s the abstract for the study:
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=2007-19851-011
Rayedish wrote:
Mmmm. Definitely babies do that, not so much older kids who attain a minimum amount of autonomy. I’d like to see how those non-het couples are coping with a crying baby or angry toddler who refuses to sleep, or when one parent or other literally comes to the end of their rope at 3AM or is wearing yet another bowl of dinner time kiddie-slop from a child pushing boundaries. Conflict knows no gender or sexual orientation bounds. Eight hours of the wiggles will drive anybody to angry outburst (WAKE UP GEOFF YOU F*CKER!!).
I’d also be interested to know what the income distributions were - I’ll bet the non-het couples include far more dual-full-income couples than the het ones which make negotiation of household duties far more fraught.
With same-sex couples, of course, none of these dichotomies were possible
Get ye to Gender Studies 101, toot sweet, girlfriend! Oh and also to English 101. It is “none of these dichotomies WAS possible.” Singular sweetie, singular.
Hey there Judy - you wouldn’t be a screen name for John Greenfield, by any chance? Luvvie?
Sista Kim
Screen names are like gender; a reification of the performative. You would do well to keep up!
Kim, I don’t see anything in that abstract that mentions a comparison of happiness to egalitarianism. The differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships are much more complex than just gender inequity. To draw such conclusions using the high level outputs from the study is to oversimplify things. Perhaps the actual study measures the correlation between the two while considering other variables, however I see no indication from the article or abstract that it has done so.
Judith Butler
You are in error. All, any, none, some, such, can either be singular or plural.
None can mean ‘not one’ and therefore singular. Or it can mean ‘not any’ implying plurality.
How about we let the study speak for itself? I’ve tracked it down via a database and here is the bit I think is relevant. It’s worth noting that Solomon - if you look her up on google scholar - is a co-author of a number of studies done at U Vermont, and it’s possible that what she’s talking to the reporter about is yet another paper - highly likely, in fact, since the one I found came out in January. I wasn’t able to locate anything more recent, but that’s not surprising - often universities and journals try to get publicity for new articles/research findings before they’re released.
Anyway -
Kim,
Thanks for posting that, it was an interesting read.
The conclusions of the study are that homosexual couples in civil unions are ‘happier’ than heterosexual couples in civil unions. The big point that Feministing makes about the link between happiness and egalitarian relationships is limited to part of one of half a dozen or so possibilities that the study discussed but did no testing or analysis for.
The study makes no conclusions in this regard and its disingenuous to use it to support such claims. I’m not saying that such claims are false, just that they aren’t supported by this study.
That’s a fair enough point, Desipis, but it would be a reasonable inference that could be the basis of further research. And there’s nothing stopping us discussing whether we think that such a correlation would be found from anecdotal sources or other insights.
I’m surprised the researchers didn’t attempt to see if their data supported any of their possibilities, that included. I just see a big push to a one-size-fits-all attitude in defining the ‘best’ form of relationship, which has the ability to pressure couples into unhappy relationships whether this form is based on a traditional heterosexual model or a perfectly egalitarian split-everything-50-50 model.
I think the two limitations of this study are the sample size and the fact that there’s so little research on same-sex couples - so they’re breaking new ground. A larger sample would allow the specification and operationalisation of different variables, which might get us closer to conclusions such as those drawn in the article - testing them that is.
I don’t know that anyone is trying to argue for a 50/50 split - egalitarianism appears to be more about negotiation and communication rather than some mathematical division of labour in this context, I’d have thought.
The RAT Institute also ran some studies on long term relationships once. From memory we found high rates of clear understanding between Drill sergeant and recruit, Psychiatrist and committed patient, prison warden and inmate, Factory Boss and line worker, Sex worker and Brothel manager. Many of these relationships were very stable over long lead times even if our grant funds dried up too soon. Please remember the RAT Institute in your will. All donations are tax evadable. Thank you.
The conclusion is “The take-away lesson should simply be that with more equality — and with some breathing room from society’s expectations for our gender — we’re all a lot happier in relationships.” should be relatively easy to test.
Male/Female equality is probably greatest in the Western world - in other cultures, the gender divide is greater, so presumably if the conclusion of the study is correct, the level of unhappiness in relationships should be higher.
Have any studies been done on the relativee happiness/longetivity of relationships across cultures?
Andrew, from what I’ve read the happiness of Western marriages is dismal compared to cultures where tradition plays a much greater role. However as I argued with the sexuality divide, I think that the impact from egalitarian nature of the relationship is only one of many dimensions where the relationships will differ and so no clear conclusion can be drawn from the overall differences in regards to a single dimension.
Our campaign to make crew-cutted white haute bourgeois lesbians the norm of human achievement has been very successful in souring relations between female-identified and non-female-identified humans. Remember, masculinity is the great cancer we must destroy.
Satire really isn’t your strong suit, John Greenfield.
“Satire really isn’t your strong suit, John Greenfield.”
No, stick to the…
ummmm…
*crickets*
I don’t think that Mr Greenfield has a strong suit. A mild hair shirt maybe…
A Presybterian boiler suit?
While I am sure Judith John is capable of defending herself, I must demand some clarification. Is the allegation that JG is quite accomplished at satire, but not as accomplished as in other areas OR not only not accomplished anywhere, but particularly dismal at satire?
If it is the latter, I must proteth!
You “proteth” too much: to a Nunnery, go!
The allegation is that John Greenfield’s dismality at satire is matched only by the sheer intergalactic scale of his obtuseness.
Meanwhile, back on the thread’s rails…
Mercurius
How am I, er judith, “obtuse”?
QED