(Book review -- For Better: The Science of a Good Marriage by Tara Parker-Pope)
I picked up this lovely tome from the library because I approach marriage the same way I approach a biology midterm. First step: studying!
Boy and I work so well together it's nauseating, but I'm always looking for new communication and relationship-management skillz to add to our repertoire. This book seemed to have the ultimate combination: science and good marriage, together at last. Why yes, sign me up for some solid evidence-based relationship advice! To seal the deal, the book's cover has a PIE CHART encircled in a wedding band!! OMG I LOVE GRAPHS!!
I mean "rings," I love rings. I'll never figure out how to be a regular girl.
Unfortunately, the book is more like an uncritical meta-review of shitty sociological studies. Wow, you can find evidence for differences between men and women? Quick, imply that they are inborn and natural, and then intentionally confuse correlative relationships with causal ones! Hurry, before they figure out how easy and fun it is to violate gender norms!
Don't even get me started on the RAMPANT HETEROSEXISM of her work -- all advice is given to straight couples, gay people are only referenced as subjects of study who only exist to illuminate the heterosexual condition. Says Parker-Pope: "Given that gay marriage isn't legal in most places, it's hard to believe there's much to be learned from gay and lesbian partners!"
WOW! DID YOU KNOW THAT THE GAYS HAVE SOMETHING TO CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIETY?!? I CERTAINLY DIDN'T!!!
Throughout the book, Parker-Pope (perhaps unwittingly?) insinuates that conforming to rigid gender molds may stand in the way of deeper understanding of your partner. All of her illustrative relationship conflicts are laden with gendered hand-wringing: "Why does she always want to TALK about our our problems?" "Why won't he just ASK for directions when we're lost?" "Why is she always berating herself for being FAT?" etc. etc. For those in highly gendered relationships, frustration about an inability to understand one's partner seems pervasive.
My best friend once said, trying to explain the difficulties of traditional marriage, "it's like men and women grow up in completely different worlds." Boys are encouraged to play with cars, while girls are encouraged to make themselves beautiful; boys yell, girls cry; boys get into fistfights while girls opt for diplomacy. With different interests, social norms, and codes of behavior, how can we be expected to understand each other, let alone forge deep and lasting connections?
Parker-Pope never explicitly articulates any anti-gender argument, but her sociological data gently dance around this point: WE HAVE TO FORGE SOME COMMON GROUND, 'CAUSE THIS SHIT AIN'T WORKING. Finally, after agonizing about it for 200+ pages, she presents an alternative to the highly gendered marriage model: so-called "peer marriages."
According to Parker-Pope, peer marriage "is based on a mix of equity and equality. Each partner contributed time and money to the relationship based on what he or she received, and each person had equal status in the household. Husband and wife were equally responsible for economic, household, and domestic duties."
Wow, that sounds pretty fucking sweet, right?!? READ ON:
"While [having this kind of equitable relationship] may sound impressive, the reality is that these relationships aren't perfect, and often require sacrifices many couples can't or won't make. [...] The constant focus on equality can be emotionally taxing -- it takes far less thought to divide household and parenting duties along gender lines than it does to work out a complex system of balance."
Yeah, I remember this time we had an EPIC week-long summit on chore division:
Girl: "I would like to help you with your computer problems and do your taxes, as suits my natural abilities and inclinations."
Boy: "Since you spend so much time commuting, I will cook you dinner! I highly enjoy combining foods in a nutritious and tasty manner."
Girl: "When you're done, sit down and relax while I do the laundry."
Boy: "If you don't mind, I'll take this opportunity to sweep and tidy up the living room."
Both: "Thanks for helping out! I sincerely appreciate your contribution."
OH, SO EMOTIONALLY TAXING.
She continues:
"Peer couples typically can't pursue careers to the fullest extent possible because the relationship is the focus and priority of both partners' lives."
Translation: Men can't maniacally pursue their careers because they actually have to scrub their own urine stains out of the toilet every once in a while. Also, they might be expected to cuddle with their wives even though that shit is totes gay.
Then there was this gem:
"Although peer relationships often involve intense companionship, some peer couples reported having less robust sex lives. One reason may be that sexual tension is often based on masculine and feminine gender roles. Peer marriages de-emphasize gender roles and place a greater emphasis on friendship and fairness. While that can make for a great partnership, it can also take some of the sizzle out of a relationship."
If I can delineate any kind of "train of thought" from this selective reading of the evidence ("some couples"?) and idle speculation ("one reason may be"), she seems to be saying that if a husband stops oppressing his wife, she will no longer see him as a man, and thus will no longer desire to bang him? EMASCULAT'D!
This book was so obnoxious, it has inspired me to write my own marriage manual. It will be called, How Not To be a Terrible Husband: Do Your Fair Share of the Housework, You Asshole. There will only be one page, which will read, "Didn't you read the fucking title? Pick up a mop help your wife."
The sequel will consist of a punch to the skull.
I picked up this lovely tome from the library because I approach marriage the same way I approach a biology midterm. First step: studying!
Boy and I work so well together it's nauseating, but I'm always looking for new communication and relationship-management skillz to add to our repertoire. This book seemed to have the ultimate combination: science and good marriage, together at last. Why yes, sign me up for some solid evidence-based relationship advice! To seal the deal, the book's cover has a PIE CHART encircled in a wedding band!! OMG I LOVE GRAPHS!!
I mean "rings," I love rings. I'll never figure out how to be a regular girl.
Unfortunately, the book is more like an uncritical meta-review of shitty sociological studies. Wow, you can find evidence for differences between men and women? Quick, imply that they are inborn and natural, and then intentionally confuse correlative relationships with causal ones! Hurry, before they figure out how easy and fun it is to violate gender norms!
Don't even get me started on the RAMPANT HETEROSEXISM of her work -- all advice is given to straight couples, gay people are only referenced as subjects of study who only exist to illuminate the heterosexual condition. Says Parker-Pope: "Given that gay marriage isn't legal in most places, it's hard to believe there's much to be learned from gay and lesbian partners!"
WOW! DID YOU KNOW THAT THE GAYS HAVE SOMETHING TO CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIETY?!? I CERTAINLY DIDN'T!!!
Throughout the book, Parker-Pope (perhaps unwittingly?) insinuates that conforming to rigid gender molds may stand in the way of deeper understanding of your partner. All of her illustrative relationship conflicts are laden with gendered hand-wringing: "Why does she always want to TALK about our our problems?" "Why won't he just ASK for directions when we're lost?" "Why is she always berating herself for being FAT?" etc. etc. For those in highly gendered relationships, frustration about an inability to understand one's partner seems pervasive.
My best friend once said, trying to explain the difficulties of traditional marriage, "it's like men and women grow up in completely different worlds." Boys are encouraged to play with cars, while girls are encouraged to make themselves beautiful; boys yell, girls cry; boys get into fistfights while girls opt for diplomacy. With different interests, social norms, and codes of behavior, how can we be expected to understand each other, let alone forge deep and lasting connections?
Parker-Pope never explicitly articulates any anti-gender argument, but her sociological data gently dance around this point: WE HAVE TO FORGE SOME COMMON GROUND, 'CAUSE THIS SHIT AIN'T WORKING. Finally, after agonizing about it for 200+ pages, she presents an alternative to the highly gendered marriage model: so-called "peer marriages."
According to Parker-Pope, peer marriage "is based on a mix of equity and equality. Each partner contributed time and money to the relationship based on what he or she received, and each person had equal status in the household. Husband and wife were equally responsible for economic, household, and domestic duties."
Wow, that sounds pretty fucking sweet, right?!? READ ON:
"While [having this kind of equitable relationship] may sound impressive, the reality is that these relationships aren't perfect, and often require sacrifices many couples can't or won't make. [...] The constant focus on equality can be emotionally taxing -- it takes far less thought to divide household and parenting duties along gender lines than it does to work out a complex system of balance."
Yeah, I remember this time we had an EPIC week-long summit on chore division:
Girl: "I would like to help you with your computer problems and do your taxes, as suits my natural abilities and inclinations."
Boy: "Since you spend so much time commuting, I will cook you dinner! I highly enjoy combining foods in a nutritious and tasty manner."
Girl: "When you're done, sit down and relax while I do the laundry."
Boy: "If you don't mind, I'll take this opportunity to sweep and tidy up the living room."
Both: "Thanks for helping out! I sincerely appreciate your contribution."
OH, SO EMOTIONALLY TAXING.
She continues:
"Peer couples typically can't pursue careers to the fullest extent possible because the relationship is the focus and priority of both partners' lives."
Translation: Men can't maniacally pursue their careers because they actually have to scrub their own urine stains out of the toilet every once in a while. Also, they might be expected to cuddle with their wives even though that shit is totes gay.
Then there was this gem:
"Although peer relationships often involve intense companionship, some peer couples reported having less robust sex lives. One reason may be that sexual tension is often based on masculine and feminine gender roles. Peer marriages de-emphasize gender roles and place a greater emphasis on friendship and fairness. While that can make for a great partnership, it can also take some of the sizzle out of a relationship."
If I can delineate any kind of "train of thought" from this selective reading of the evidence ("some couples"?) and idle speculation ("one reason may be"), she seems to be saying that if a husband stops oppressing his wife, she will no longer see him as a man, and thus will no longer desire to bang him? EMASCULAT'D!
This book was so obnoxious, it has inspired me to write my own marriage manual. It will be called, How Not To be a Terrible Husband: Do Your Fair Share of the Housework, You Asshole. There will only be one page, which will read, "Didn't you read the fucking title? Pick up a mop help your wife."
The sequel will consist of a punch to the skull.
