The last line of that article was the part that is going to scare people the most. If it's not natural, it's something we learned, something we can control or change, we're going to be expected to control and/or change it. That's going to be particularly hard on the people who think male-female relationships are just fine the way they are, because we've just been shown that they could be a lot better.

What I've found is that compatibility is way more important than flexibility for happy relationships be they platonic, romantic, or simply erotic.

The coverage on research studies on feministing.com is always so interesting. When a study confirms the widely held wisdom on the board, it is propped up and treated as a gold standard. Of course its that way! When a study conflicts with the widely held wisdom, it's trashed. Even when the two studies use roughly equal methods.

I think it's worth critically analyzing the news article, which is largely a propaganda piece attempting to differentiate gay relationships from heterosexual relationships. The article claims that there are many significant differences between hetero and gay/lesbian relationships, when really the differences they allude to are very small or nonexistent.

CLAIM 1: Gay/Lesbian couples are more satisfied.

The article focuses on how gay relationships are happier than hetero relationships. Yes, in some studies that's statistically true, but the effect sizes are very small.

I'll give you an illustration from one of our studies (which has thousands of gay/lesbian participants and tens of thousands heterosexual participants). On a 7 point scale, where 7 = very satisfied, all four groups fall between a mean of 5.5 and 6.0 (Het male = 5.4, gay male = 6.0, het female = 5.6, lesbian female = 5.8). Not really much here to argue for strong differences in overall satisfaction between the groups.

CLAIM 2: Gay couples argue about money less often or differently.

Again, very small differences. Across the groups, there is not difference in frequency of arguing about money or in perception of who wins the arguments more often)partner vs. self vs. equal).

So, overall, my opinion is that the research shows that gay and lesbian couples have about the same outcomes as everyone else in terms of major relationship outcomes.

CLAIM 3: Gay couples split household chores more fairly.

The money/egalitarian division of labor argument in the post is also misleading. Generally speaking, about half of all couples (gay/straight/hetero) think that household chores are divvied up fairly. Gay and lesbian couples are only slightly more likely than heterosexual couples to think it is divided up fairly.

CLAIM 4: Egalitarian couples are generally happier.

There is some truth to that, though what most research has found is that its important for there to be a match between one's views and one's current relationship. For example, a woman with traditional gender views has particularly low satisfaction when she makes more money than her partner, and women/men with traditional views are generally satisfied when each occupies their traditional role.

This isn't to say that there aren't unique pressures and plusses to hetero and gay/lesbian relationships. Only that the story was obviously trying to make a political point by using very selected research findings.

"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."

P.S. - While ideologically I endorse the statement above, that we should be promoting equality in relationships and freedom from restrictive gender roles, what I was challenging is whether the research discussed strongly proves that point or not with actual data. It doesn't.

A bit off topic, but a song for everyone - I kind of made it up when drunk ...

This was inspired by a headline in this month's Ms. Magazine.

In recapping a story regarding a study from a few months ago that indicated that feminists have better relationships, the headline read "If You Want To Be Happy For the Rest of You Life, Make a Feminist Your Husband Or Wife."

So, inspired, I re-wrote the lyrics to a very sexist '60s song. The music is still the same. Try it the next time you have a feminist party and are singing. :0)

CHORUS: If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life
Don’t make someone sexist your husband or wife
So for my personal point of view
Get a feminist to marry you

A feminist partner will set you free
And break down the patriarchy
They won’t care about silly gender roles
Don't believe what you've been told
If you make a feminist your husband or wife
You'll be happy for the rest of your life
Just say no to misogyny
And “eroticize equality”

REPEAT CHORUS

You may want to get married you may not
If you do, give feminists a shot
So if you ever exchange marriage vows
Do so with a member of NOW
Should you find none of them are left
Marry someone from the FMF!

I think it's worth critically examining the above post, which is largely a propaganda piece attempting to differentiate one third-party report of a study from another third-party report of a different study.

To start, the above poster begins with a broad statement denouncing Feministing's coverage, but phrasing it as "interesting". Of course it's that way!

The author then goes into specific differences between studies that they know well, and this report of a study that they haven't read and that the report does not go into great depth on. By drawing comparisons to nonexistent data, the author can achieve a greater-than 80% truthiness factor, which, on a 7-point scale, accounts for a 10% increase in absolute value.

I respectfully diagree. I love traditional gender roles and don't find them demeaning to women at all. We are men's complements not inferiors. I think all the so called progression in gender roles has caused more damage than done good for both men and women. I look forward to the day when I am a married woman and can take care of my home and family's needs. I don't see this as being degrading at all. Women who stay home and raise their children are actvists. They are influencing the next generation to help society. I want and need my husband's protection and leadership. It feels more natural than trying to have one up on him. Yes there are young women out there like myself who embrace traditional gender roles.

Pagal, I completely support your choice. If staying home, raising children, and doing housework does it for you, then I hope you find a like minded man and are very happy. However, I would not choose any of those things for myself, and hope that you support that choice as well. It would be terrible if either of us were forced to live the other one's life, because we'd both be pretty unhappy.

Ann - you shouldn't be surprised that the article was interesting and fair. Tara Parker-Pope is good. I've been reading her blog on the NYTimes site (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/) and she handles issues like obesity and disability with a lot of sensitivity. She also apologizes when she does inadvertently offend people and replies to a lot of comments. I don't know if she identifies herself as a feminist, but I think she has some pretty strong feminist values.

If you will allow me to rearrange some of your lines to achieve the best effect:

I respectfully diagree. I think all the so called progression in gender roles has caused more damage than done good for both men and women.

I question the juxtaposition of "respectfully" and "so called". Further, is it right to say that you "respectfully" disagree when you say that beliefs different from yours cause damage?
Respectful disagreement would be to say that one solution doesn't fit all, and that your particular beliefs are different. But you didn't do that.

I look forward to the day when I am a married woman and can take care of my home and family's needs. I don't see this as being degrading at all.

To continue, it is not degrading to take care of one's family... it is degrading to be told that you have no options or choice in the matter, that one must take care of one's home and family, even if one would rather not.

I love traditional gender roles and don't find them demeaning to women at all. We are men's complements not inferiors. I want and need my husband's protection and leadership. It feels more natural than trying to have one up on him.

And this juxtaposition is likewise questionable. Leaders are not complements of their followers - they're, by definition, superior to their inferiors.

Women who stay home and raise their children are actvists. They are influencing the next generation to help society.

By that questionable definition of activist, so are women who work and influence the next generation to help society, men who work or stay home and influence the next generation to help society, authors and politicians and artists and economists who influence the next generation to help society.
By your definition, who would not be an activist? Serial killers?

Yes there are young women out there like myself who embrace traditional gender roles.

Absolutely. It's a shame that you can't be comfortable without simultaneously attacking young women and men who don't embrace traditional gender roles.

I love traditional gender roles and don't find them demeaning to women at all.

You don't find them demeaning to yourself. Plenty of women DO find them demeaning, myself included. You do not speak for me.

We are men's complements not inferiors.

There is no evidence for that. All women are not the same. All men are not the same. Oppositional gender is a myth.

I think all the so called progression in gender roles has caused more damage than done good for both men and women.

Why? How is it damaging to allow men and women to be their authentic selves, without being confined to narrow gender roles? Maybe you think it's damaging because it forces you to think about how you want to live your life, rather than having it all planned out for you according to your genitalia.

I look forward to the day when I am a married woman and can take care of my home and family's needs. I don't see this as being degrading at all.

Nobody said it was, and nobody said you'd necessarily find it degrading.

Women who stay home and raise their children are actvists. They are influencing the next generation to help society.

Where are you getting your definition of "activism?" Not all women who stay at home are good mothers. Nor do all SAHMs instill good values in their kids. Alternatively, some moms work outside the home and raise their kids to be good citizens at the same time!

I want and need my husband's protection and leadership. It feels more natural than trying to have one up on him. Yes there are young women out there like myself who embrace traditional gender roles.

If your husband is your "leader," he IS your superior, despite your earlier claim. Why is a woman who follows her own dreams, works outside the home, etc. "trying to have one up" on her partner? Clearly you think a woman's natural role is one of subservience, wherein she must build her life around a man. I do find that demeaning, but I would never demand that YOU live YOUR life in a way that feels unnatural to YOU.

Thaetus: "The author then goes into specific differences between studies that they know well, and this report of a study that they haven't read and that the report does not go into great depth on."

Completely untrue. I've seen the results of the study mentioned in the article as a conference presentation. But, the results featured in the news article are now published in journals. My description is still 100% accurate. In their study, on a 5 point scale, here are the mean relationship satisfaction ratings: Gay men = 4.1, Hetero men = 4.0, Lesbian women = 4.1, Hetero women = 4.1. Where, exactly, do you see a difference, one that justifies strong claims about differences in relationship quality among gay/lesbian/heterosexual couples? One that justifies a full news article pronouncing the differences?

Reference: Balsam/Beauchaine/Rothblum/Solomon (2008) - Developmental Psychology.

In any case, if you want a comprehensive review of the literature that confirms my original post, see: Peplau/Fingerhut/Beals (2004) Sexuality in the relationships of lesbians and gay men.

Thaetus: " To start, the above poster begins with a broad statement denouncing Feministing's coverage, but phrasing it as "interesting".""

I do think it is interesting how one's disciplinary training or political/religious beliefs influence the way research is interpreted and presented. I feel comfortable pointing that out on this board because it is such a recurrent theme. For example, compare the coverage of the "feminist individuals have better relationships study" with the "black women who watch rap videos are more likely to do drugs" article.

One study was bashed, the other praised with no critical analysis, even though they used essentially the same methods (correlational studies with crude measures of the primary dependent variables).

Both studies are useful, in my opinion, there is an uneven handling of research studies here.

Thaetus: "By drawing comparisons to nonexistent data, the author can achieve a greater-than 80% truthiness factor, which, on a 7-point scale, accounts for a 10% increase in absolute value."

This part of your post made no sense to me, since I referred to existent data to support my claims. Granted, the illustration I gave was based on data presented at a conference rather than in press, but it was in line with most other studies on the topic.

To pagal

I agree with you, but from the opposite gender side of the aisle.

I am a man who would love to be in a female led relationship, i.e. where I was responsible for the house and she were the breadwinner - maybe not in mutually exclusive capacities, but with those general role descriptions.

Expressing this has brought out plenty of negative comments from both men and women, apparently, gender roles are so ingrained that many people find it odd to stray from the stereotypical roles - so I welcome any study which sheds light on alternatives.

david

"I respectfully diagree. I love traditional gender roles and don't find them demeaning to women at all. We are men's complements not inferiors. I think all the so called progression in gender roles has caused more damage than done good for both men and women. I look forward to the day when I am a married woman and can take care of my home and family's needs. I don't see this as being degrading at all. Women who stay home and raise their children are actvists. They are influencing the next generation to help society. I want and need my husband's protection and leadership. It feels more natural than trying to have one up on him. Yes there are young women out there like myself who embrace traditional gender roles."

Pagal, there are many feminists (nearly all) who would agree with you when you say that staying at home and raising kids is a wonderful role to have.

The point of feminism is to give men and women more flexibility in choosing those roles. If a woman or man chooses to stay home with their kids, this should be celebrated. If a woman or man chooses to pursue a career and share child-raising responsibilities, this should be celebrated.

What is contrary to feminism is claiming that only womens should stay home and only men should work.

One of the things that drew me to feminism is that I have the great fortune to work with and mentor brilliant female students who end up pursuing law degrees, become clinicians who work with children, study how evolution crafted hormonal response systems that influence sexuality, become involved with fMRI brain research, develop ways to combat eating disorders, etc. It would be so sad to go back to a time where women didn't have the option to fulfill their potential by pursuing these roles because they strongly steered into just one role - stay at home mother - by social pressures.

To pagal

I agree with you, but from the opposite gender side of the aisle.

I am a man who would love to be in a female led relationship, i.e. where I was responsible for the house and she were the breadwinner - maybe not in mutually exclusive capacities, but with those general role descriptions.

Expressing this has brought out plenty of negative comments from both men and women, apparently, gender roles are so ingrained that many people find it odd to stray from the stereotypical roles - so I welcome any study which sheds light on alternatives.

david

To pagal

I agree with you, but from the opposite gender side of the aisle.

I am a man who would love to be in a female led relationship, i.e. where I was responsible for the house and she were the breadwinner - maybe not in mutually exclusive capacities, but with those general role descriptions.

Expressing this has brought out plenty of negative comments from both men and women, apparently, gender roles are so ingrained that many people find it odd to stray from the stereotypical roles - so I welcome any study which sheds light on alternatives.

david

Soory for the duplication - the software kept hanging up.

I wish there were a way to delete dupe posts.

david

Thaetus: "By your definition, who would not be an activist? Serial killers?"

Dexter is kind of an interesting activitist.

SARAHMC: "Why is a woman who follows her own dreams, works outside the home, etc. "trying to have one up" on her partner? Clearly you think a woman's natural role is one of subservience, wherein she must build her life around a man."

Word, good catch. I missed that implication embedded her language. As you say, why does one partner thriving in a work environment somehow imply that you have "one-upped" your partner? It's a partnership, not a competition.

"The point of feminism is to give men and women more flexibility in choosing those roles" Characterizing feminism as focused on men is wishful, but all that other stuff you wrote is pretty awesome.

Apparently an equitable relationship equals a woman "one-upping" her partner.

"The point of feminism is to give men and women more flexibility in choosing those roles" Characterizing feminism as focused on men is wishful, but all that other stuff you wrote is pretty awesome.

Theaetetus commented: "I look forward to the day when I am a married woman and can take care of my home and family's needs. I don't see this as being degrading at all.

"To continue, it is not degrading to take care of one's family... it is degrading to be told that you have no options or choice in the matter, that one must take care of one's home and family, even if one would rather not."

It's also degrading to be left broke with a stale résumé after one's husband adopts one more traditional gender role for men, the one of preferring a younger and perkier woman to the middle-aged mother of his children and of putting machismo before supportive loyalty to a woman...

Theaetetus commented: "Women who stay home and raise their children are actvists. They are influencing the next generation to help society.

"By that questionable definition of activist, so are women who work and influence the next generation to help society..."

Which reminds me, when a woman stays at home to raise the next generation of engineers and her daughter gets an B.Eng. to be an engineer in that generation, ever noticed how so many people out there count the SAHM's work but not the engineer's work as contributing to society...?

Theaetetus commented: "Yes there are young women out there like myself who embrace traditional gender roles.

"Absolutely. It's a shame that you can't be comfortable without simultaneously attacking young women and men who don't embrace traditional gender roles."

Indeed.

"I want and need my husband's protection and leadership. It feels more natural than trying to have one up on him. Yes there are young women out there like myself who embrace traditional gender roles."

If this isn't the definition for a Stepford Wife, I don't know what is. I know women who are SAHMs, and they have very egalitarian relationships with their husbands. That said, any husband who thinks that he has to be the leader of the family and feels threatened that his wife is one upping him because she has a career is a loser in my book. On the other hand, a good leader is someone who has the character to be a leader, and it is not based on what sex that person is.