Power, Politics and “Traditional” Marriage

One thing that I found during my 20 year marriage was how difficult it was to forge nontraditional dynamics in an institution that’s loaded with societal expectations, rewards, and punishments.  I didn’t think adding a marriage certificate would change relationship dynamics at all.  Boy, was I wrong. It’s really hard work to not fall into patterns set up by your parents and the folks that surround you.  If you’re not constantly vigilant, the power dynamics seem to default back to some settings that seem more set in forces outside of your control than you’d like to believe. Some times what happens is that one or both people just give up and go with the flow.   Frankly, I’ve turned into some one who is not a fan of any kind of marriage because of this.  I don’t encourage any woman to get marriage because I feel that the odds are strong she’ll be on the losing side of the power dynamic.  The more the traditional the marriage, the more the benefits accrue to men.

I’m not a sociologist, but it doesn’t take one to notice the pressures  brought to bear on married couples by their families, their neighbors and the institutions that try to engulf them.  It could be parents who expect grandchildren.  It could be neighbors that frown on career-centric parents.  It could be those folks in the pew next to you on Sunday that insist on definitions of marriage not really found in the bible but thought to be morally correct.  Even TV shows and movies send messages to couples. The marriage cult has its own set of peer pressure and expectations that remind me of junior high social dynamics. I’m happy to be free of it all.

That’s why I find this study interesting.  The study shows that husbands with stay at home wives have the most narrow views of women’s place in the world.  Their views appear stuck in the aberration that was the 1950s-1960s TV family. These also appear to be the people that are more drawn to the Republican party and are responsible for much of what we now call the War on Women.  Here’s some discussion of the study.

A recent study by Sreedhari Desai, an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found that men in traditional marriages with stay-at-home wives had negative attitudes about working women and organizations led by women, and they were more likely to deny opportunities to women.

Desai and her fellow researchers conducted a series of experiments, including one with married graduate students looking for jobs. Those in traditional marriages (that is, one in which the wife did not work outside the home) were much less likely to seek interviews for openings with companies that had higher percentages of women on their board or for which women would be doing the interviewing.

Another experiment asked male managers to pretend to be executives and recommend applicants for advancement, except the two, Diane and David, applicants had the same experience and education.

“Those who were in traditional marriages were less likely to recommend Diane and more likely to recommend David,” said Desai.

This spills over into 2012 as we fight the war on women like some kind of real-life Mad Men reenactment. Desai took a look at her data and found a correlation between her research and today’s headlines.

“One thing that did come through was those men who are in traditional marriages are against giving teenagers access to birth control,” she said.

Recent Polls show that single women and women under 50 are leaving Romney and the Republican Party like they might flee a natural disaster. Yet, Obama is not picking up married women voters in quite the same way.

But the latest polling offers a window into how the ongoing national debate on women’s issues seems to be playing out among female voters — and Democrats and Republicans are taking note of a growing divide between married and unmarried women.

In February, 64 percent of unmarried women said they would vote for Obama over Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee, according to a Democracy Corps survey analyzed by Democratic pollsters. Only 31 percent picked the GOP candidate. The gap — 33 points — was 10 points bigger than in it was in January.

Now look at what married women say: 56 percent said they would vote for Romney, and only 37 percent for Obama, with virtually no change from January to February.

So, what are the consequences of men that view women “traditionally”?  Again, it appears they are more like to support the kinds of things we’ve seen recently coming up that suppress women’s workplace rights and allow women to control their reproductive choices.

…men who have stay-at-home wives are more likely to oppose women’s rights and have negative attitudes about working women:

We found that employed husbands in traditional marriages, compared to those in modern marriages, tend to (a) view the presence of women in the workplace unfavorably, (b) perceive that organizations with higher numbers of female employees are operating less smoothly, (c) find organizations with female leaders as relatively unattractive, and (d) deny, more frequently, qualified female employees opportunities for promotion. The consistent pattern of results found across multiple studies employing multiple methods and samples demonstrates the robustness of the findings.

By insisting on staying the breadwinners for their families, men seem to also be subconsciously buying into the idea that their wives shouldn’t work. And according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics from 2010 (as cited in the study), there are more than 11 million men in such arrangements, contributing to a culture opposed to women working. The study suggests that these men might be characterized as “benevolent sexists,” but clarifies they are not likely to be overtly hostile towards women.

Marriage dynamics appear to influence all kinds of political and work place actions.  Susie Madrak has some interesting observations to add to mine.

There is an age-old problem with being a woman at home, and it has to do with distribution and claiming of power. The woman’s opinions are too frequently seen as advisory-only (except in the areas traditionally designated to women: children, decor, schools, etc.) and it’s been my observation through the years that women then indulge in covert strategies to assert their power. In other words, “what he doesn’t know won’t hurt him.” So purchases are made in secret and smuggled into the home, much like an “I Love Lucy” episode.

You see a lot of hostage-like negotiation in which the financial hostage (wife) isn’t even aware that she’s conceded her right to partnership power. Instead, she’s focused on wheedling, nagging, cajoling and subterfuge. No way for grownups to act!

A lot of guys like it, though. After all, it’s familiar to them. Their mothers did it (or their mothers didn’t do it, and the sons preferred they had), it seemed to keep the family together, what’s the big deal? The big deal is, one “partner” in this sort of relationship is accepting inferior status. The other partner is agreeing.

Over the past few years, I’ve had male friends mention how much they wished their wives would go to work. “But not a real job,” they’re quick to add. “Just something to help out.” Because if women insist on career jobs, it’s a lot more threatening than a part-time gig at a convenience store, I suppose.

I’ve also known couples where both partners have careers, but the husband makes a lot more money. That person seems to retain the same paternal mindset as if she wasn’t working at all, which is interesting.

I have my own anecdotal evidence to add to Susie’s thoughts.  I used to make at least as much or more than my husband until we started our family.  I also felt it was important to spend time with the girls when they were young and so throttled back my career path.  It coincides to the exact same time that my husband started treating me like some kind of burden who automatically had less of a say in things.   When we started out, I would have never thought I’d have wound up in that position, but I did.

I have one last thing to add to this conversation.  It’s the evidence that’s shown up in one of the main groups that advocates “traditional” marriage and looks to ban Gay marriages.  It shows exactly how much power dynamics are at play in the attempt to keep the institution of marriage narrowly defined.

Last week, a federal judge in Maine unsealed memos from the National Organization for Marriage, one of the most prominent groups fighting against same-sex marriage.

They relate to a case filed over whether the group must disclose the donors that helped underwrite a 2009 ballot initiative that overturned the state’s legalization of same-sex marriage. The group uses its designation as a social welfare organization to avoid federal disclosure, but the memos dispel any notion that the claim has any legitimacy. National Organization for Marriage is a political group, through and through.

The documents brag about its “crucial” role in passage of Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage that was overturned by a federal appeals court. They describe the group’s use of “robo-calls” to scare residents in different states away from supporting marriage equality. They talk of a plan to “expose Obama as a social radical,” but the most appalling portions deal with the group’s racially and ethnically divisive strategies.

“The strategic goal of the project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks — two key Democratic constituencies,” says one memo.

Another stated aim is to manipulate Hispanic voters by making the exclusion of gay people from marriage “a key badge of Latino identity.”

I’m beginning to think this is really a fight to maintain straight male power and privilege more than anything.  I’m not sure what’s more threatening.  Women opting out of marriage or the gay community opting in.