GENDERED INTIMACY
In this chapter, we will focus on gender dynamics in close relationships. To begin
our discussion, we will clarify what personal relationships are. We will then consider
typically masculine and feminine ways of experiencing and express- ing closeness and how
Western culture views each of those ways. Finally, we’ll explore gendered patterns in
friendships and romantic relationships to appreciate different ways that people create
closeness.
Of the many relationships we form, only a few become really personal, occupying a
special place in our lives and affecting us deeply. Personal relationships are those in which
close friends and romantic partners depend on each other for various things from affection
to material assistance. In personal relationships, we expect trust, honesty, affection,
respect, companionship, time, energy, and assistance with the large and small issues in life.
Also, close friends and romantic partners regard each other as unique individuals who
cannot be replaced. If a casual friend moves, we can find a replacement; if a business
associate goes to another company, we can work with a new colleague. When a personal
partner leaves or dies, however, the relationship ends, although we may continue to feel
connected to the person who is no longer physically with us.
Research demonstrates that people often choose friends and romantic partners who are
similar to themselves in terms of age, gender, race, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic
status. Close friendships are often particularly salient for those with minority identities—
for example, LGBTQ individuals are more likely to refer to their friends as “family” and may
depend on these relationships to meet needs neglected by the larger culture
Models of Personal Relationships
People often, but not always, approach close relationships in ways that reflect
gender. Some scholars argue that masculine approaches are inferior to feminine ones,
while others think that the two styles are different yet equally valid. We’ll consider each of
these viewpoints.
The Male Deficit Model
Because our society views women as interpersonally sensitive, feminine ways of
interacting are often assumed to be “the right ways.” Thus, a number of researchers
maintain that a masculine style of building and maintaining relationships is inadequate.
This view, the male deficit model, asserts that men are less skilled than women in
developing and sustaining personal relationships.
The fundamental assumption of the male deficit model is that personal, emotional
talk is the hallmark of intimacy. A classic investigation measured the intimacy of same-sex
friendships by the amount of intimate information disclosed between friends. As women
generally self-disclose more than men, it is not surprising that the researchers concluded
that women were more intimate than men. Based on this line of research, men were
advised to learn to express their feelings more openly.
Even today, many assume that women are the experts at building intimacy and
supportive relationships Films, television programs and print, TV, self-help literature, and
online ads often represent men as emotionally lacking and women as naturally adept at
relationships. But some researchers question the male deficit model, offering a second
interpretation of different ways people create and express closeness.
The Alternate Paths Model
The alternate paths model claims that there are different and equally valid paths to
closeness. This model agrees with the male deficit model that gendered socialization is the
root of differences between feminine and masculine styles of relating. It departs from the
deficit model, however, in two important ways. First, the alternate paths model does not
presume that masculine people lack feelings or emotional depth. Rather, it suggests that
masculine socialization limits men’s opportunities to practice emotional talk, which leads
them to be less comfortable engaging in emotional communication. Second, the alternate
paths model argues that masculine people do express closeness but in an alternate way
than feminine people. According to this model, masculine and feminine ways of expressing
closeness are different, and the two ways are equally valid.
Influenced by this viewpoint, Scott Swain (1989) studied men’s close friendships in
a classic study. He discovered that many men develop closeness by doing things together.
Following Swain’s lead, other studies showed that closeness between men generally
doesn’t grow primarily out of emotional talk and self-disclosure, and it is not primarily
expressed in those ways . Research has also shown that father–son relationships are built
largely on doing things together. For many men, like Paige’s boyfriend, talking about
problems may be less effective than diversionary activities to relieve stress (Metts, 2006a).
Yet, it would be a mistake to think that women don’t do things with friends and men don’t
talk with friends. Women friends enjoy doing things together and helping each other out
just as most men talk with their friends (Chapman & Hendler, 1999). Further, as Paul
Wright (2006) notes, many of the activities in which men engage enhance emotional
closeness. Camping, for instance, provides a rich opportunity to share experiences,
thoughts, and feelings.
Gendered Styles of Friendship
Regardless of sex or gender, most individuals value close friends and invest in them.
Also, people of all gender identities and expressions engage in instrumental and expressive
modes of building and expressing closeness, although gendered differences exist with
regard to the frequency and extent of using each mode. Against the backdrop of
commonalities in approaches to friendship, there are gendered differences in how
individuals typically—but not invariably—build friendships and interact within them. As
you read about these different styles, keep in mind that most of us use both styles, although
women tend to favor feminine style and men tend to favor masculine style. Research that
includes LGBTQ experiences and identities in the context of friendships is unfortunately
limited, but where it exists, greatly enhances our understanding of how gender shapes
relationships.
As early as 1982, Paul Wright noted that women tend to engage each other face-to-
face, whereas men usually interact side by side. By this, Wright meant that women are
more likely than men to communicate face-to-face with each other. Men more typically
engage in activities that do not involve facing each other. Wright’s observation gives us a
foundation for exploring how gender shapes friendships.
Feminine Friendships: Closeness in Dialogue
Regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or economic status, a majority of
women regard talk as the primary way to build and enrich friendships Consequently, many
women share their personal feelings, experiences, fears, and problems in order to know
and be known by each other. To capture the quality of women’s friendships, Caroline
Becker (1987) described them as “an evolving dialogue” through which initially separate
worlds are woven together.
• Passionate Friendships
Researchers have coined the term passionate friendship to refer to unique
interpersonal relationship, typically between women, that blends aspects of romance and
friendship. While these relationships exclude sexual desire or activity, they exceed
conventional friendship in emotional intensity, physical intimacy, disclosure, and
exclusivity. This is not a new phenomenon. During the sixteenth century, many women
believed that they and their best friend shared a single soul.
Both heterosexual and LGBTQ-identified women engage in passionate friendships,
and these friendships share similar features and developmental paths regardless of sexual
orientation. However, some women’s descriptions of passionate friendships differed based
on sexual orientation, as LGBTQ-identified women are more likely to describe passionate
friendships as a place to explore same-sex attraction and connection, while heterosexual
women describe passionate friendships as important to identity development more
generally. The scholarship on passionate friendships suggests that the
lines between friendship, romance, and sexual identity are less rigid for women than
previously believed.
To know each other in depth, women friends typically confide personal feelings and
disclose intimate information, and they tend to maintain higher expectations for their
friends in matters related to trust and intimacy. Consistent with feminine socialization’s
encouragement of permeable ego boundaries, communication between women friends also
tends to be empathic, expressive, and supportive. While women tend to perceive greater
levels of intimacy in face-to-face friendships, online friendships are more likely to be
satisfying to women when they include high levels of self-disclosure and person-centered
support.
Because most women are socialized to be attentive, emotionally supportive, and
caring, it is difficult for many women to deal with feelings of envy and competitiveness
toward friends. It is not that women don’t experience these emotions but rather they may
think it’s wrong to have such feelings. Many women also find it difficult to override
socialization’s message that they are supposed to be constantly available and caring. The
bottom line is that the supportiveness and caring typical of women’s friendships can both
enrich and constrain people.
It is not unusual for women friends to talk explicitly about their friendship itself and
the dynamics between them. Many women friends are comfortable stating affection
explicitly and discussing tensions within a friendship (Lopez, 2012). In online
communication as well women are more likely than men to express affection as well as to
seek and provide support.
A final quality typical of women’s friendships is breadth. With close friends, women
tend not to restrict their communication to specific areas but invite each other into many
parts of their lives. Because women talk in detail about varied aspects of their lives, women
friends often know each other in complex and layered ways.
In summary, many women’s friendships give center stage to communication, which fosters
disclosure, verbal expressiveness, depth and breadth of knowledge, and attentiveness to
the evolving nature of the relationship.
Women who pay attention to their feelings are able to work through feelings.
However, there may be a down side. Researchers have coined the term co-rumination to
refer to frequent or excessive talk—face-to-face, email, texts, tweets, and posts—between
friends about a problem. Co-rumination can lead to heightened anxieties and emotional
contagion, in which the person listening to another’s problem feels the anxieties and
depression as if it is her own. Research shows that women generally have a greater
tendency than men to brood about bad feelings and to co-ruminate in their friendships.
Excessive brooding and co-rumination can lead to feeling stuck in unhappy feelings and
depression.
Masculine Friendships: Closeness in the Doing
At very young ages, most boys are as emotive and socially oriented as girls. Even as
they engage in vigorous play, they also talk about feelings. However, boys’ social and
emotional tendencies tend to be tempered by older children, adults, and media models of
masculinity. As a result, many boys learn to ground their friendships in shared activities,
particularly sports.
Scott Swain’s (1989) phrase “closeness in the doing” captures how many men build
friendships in ways that reflect masculine socialization. More than two-thirds of the men in
Swain’s study identified activities other than talking as the most meaningful times with
male friends. Engaging in sports, watching games, and doing other things together cultivate
camaraderie and closeness between men. When men do talk, they often talk about
activities—reminisce about great games they attended, recall pranks they played or had
played on them, and psych themselves up for upcoming activities. Whereas women tend to
look for confidantes in friends, men more typically seek companions.
Growing out of the emphasis on activities is a second feature of men’s friendships:
an instrumental focus. Because many men like doing things for people they care about,
their friendships often involve instrumental reciprocity. For example, Brad helps Jake
repair his car, and Jake assists Brad with computer problem—an exchange of favors that
allows each man to hold his own while helping the other.
A third feature of men’s friendship is typically indirect talk about serious feelings.
Many men find it uncomfortable to disclose feelings explicitly to other men. If they mention
serious emotional issues, they often engage in “joke talk”, which couches serious feelings in
humor. Rather than verbally expressing sympathy or support for a male friend who is
hurting, boys and men are more likely to use joke talk to indicate care indirectly or to
suggest diversionary activities that take the friend’s mind off his troubles. Recent research
in online communication settings suggests that while gendered norms may dissuade men
from providing highly person-centered support in face-to-face contexts, computer-
mediated communication (CMC) may provide opportunities for men to verbally express
greater sympathy and support to friends in need.
Fourth, men’s friendships often involve “covert intimacy”. Compared to women
friends, reports Kory Floyd (1997), men “simply communicate affection in different, more
‘covert’ ways so as to avoid the possible ridicule that more overt expression might invite”.
Male friends tend to signal affection by teasing one another, engaging in friendly
competition, and exchanging playful punches and backslaps. Most males learn very early in
life that physical displays of affection between men are prohibited except in traditionally
masculine settings such as sports or the military. New research suggests that men are also
more likely to offer “invisible support”. Invisible support is a form of covert intimacy but
emerges in response to a particular stressor or event. It is a form of support that the
recipient doesn’t have to acknowledge as support, either because it is instrumental
(dropping off a meal for a buddy who is stressed over exams) or is otherwise indirect
(making extra time to hang out with a friend who is sad). Because it is not obvious help,
invisible support allows the recipient to save face. Especially in masculine speech,
communities where independence is paramount, invisible support minimizes the chance
that the individual in need of support will feel vulnerable or incompetent. Some suggest
that this form of support may have especially long-lasting positive effects for the support
recipient. While covert intimacy is present in most men’s friendships regardless of sexual
orientation, friendships between gay men tend to be more physically and emotionally
expressive than straight men’s friendships.
Finally, men’s close friendships are often, although not always, more restricted in
scope than women’s close friendships. Many men have different friends for various spheres
of interest. Thus, José might play racquetball with Mike, debate politics with Clay, and
collaborate with Zach on work projects. Because men tend to focus friendships on
particular activities, they may not share as many dimensions of their lives as women
friends do. Overall, men’s friendships emphasize shared activities, instrumental
demonstrations of affection, and covert intimacy within defined spheres of interaction.
In summary, gender-linked communication patterns characterize most same-sex
friendships. These gender-linked tendencies, however, are not absolute. Most of us rely on
multiple forms of communication in our friendships.
Friendships across Gender
Friendships across gender pose unique challenges and offer special opportunities.
Because our culture is heteronormative and heavily emphasizes gender, it can be difficult
for women and men not to see each other in sexual terms. In addition, misunderstandings
may arise as the result of socialization into distinct gendered speech communities.
Despite these difficulties, friendships across gender are common. For many women,
a primary benefit of friendships with men is companionship that is less emotionally
intense. For men, an especially valued benefit of closeness with women is access to overt
emotional and expressive support. One study of close friendships between gay men and
straight women reported a unique benefit shared by both parties—the exchange of dating
and relationship advice that was perceived as more trustworthy than that offered by their
straight or gay peers.
Both men and women report receiving more emotional support from female than
male friends. Some researchers suggest that this may be related to the cultural tendency to
use a feminine ruler to measure support and thereby overlook the unique forms of support
that men tend to provide. In friendships across gender, men generally talk more and get
more attention, response, and support than they offer. A majority of people, regardless of
gender, report that friendships with women are closer and more emotionally rich, that
women are their primary confidantes, and that they are more comfortable self-disclosing to
women than to men.
Gendered Romantic Relationships
Nowhere are gendered roles as salient as in heterosexual romantic relationships.
The cultural script for heterosexual romance is well known to most of us
• Feminine women and masculine men are desirable.
• Men should initiate, plan, and direct most activities in a relationship.
• Women should facilitate conversation, generally defer to men, but control sexual activity.
• Men should excel in status and earning money, and women should assume primary
responsibility for the relationships.
Although many people claim to reject this script, as we will see, it continues to play
out in many heterosexual relationships. Compared to their straight peers, gay and lesbian
relationships tend to place a greater premium on relationship equality, and there tends to
be less role-playing and adherence to the heterosexual script.
Developing Romantic Intimacy
Personal ads and online profiles offer insight into cultural attitudes about what is
desirable in romantic partners. Men looking for women often state preferences for
stereotypically feminine physical qualities, using words such as attractive, slender, petite,
and sexy. Women’s ads for male partners tend to emphasize status and success and include
words such as ambitious, professional, and successful. Whereas LGBT-identified
individuals report a larger age range for desirable partners than their heterosexual peers,
straight men increasingly prefer younger women as they themselves age; straight women,
regardless of their own age, report little interest in men younger than themselves.
Gender expectations also shape how individuals present themselves in online
communication—heterosexual men are more likely to misrepresent their financial worth
and are more likely to be critical of women’s physical appearance, and heterosexual women
are more likely to enhance their physical attractiveness and misrepresent their weight. Gay
men’s profiles tend to emphasize masculinity, physical fitness, and are more likely than
their straight counterparts’ profiles to include a shirtless picture or a picture that excludes
the individual’s face.
Is one sex more romantic than the other? Contrary to popular belief, research
indicates that men tend to fall in love faster and harder than women, profess love earlier,
and report greater happiness than women when receiving a declaration of love. Men tend
to express love in more impulsive and sexualized ways than women, whose styles of loving
tend to be more pragmatic and friendship focused. For instance, men may equate love with
travel to romantic places, spontaneous sex, and surprising their partners. Women more
typically think of extended conversations and sharing deep feelings and physical contact
that isn’t necessarily sexual. These gendered preferences for expressing love are also
evident in some patterns of relational distress. Consistent across age groups and income
levels, heterosexual men are far more likely than heterosexual women, gay men, lesbians,
or bisexuals to regard sexual infidelity as more distressing than emotional infidelity.
Even as premarital and casual sex are more widely accepted, studies conducted on
heterosexual, cisgender communities indicate that women who express sexuality openly or
have nontraditional relationships and partners are judged more harshly than men who do
the same. Research also shows that men and women have different primary motives for
engaging in sex. Cisgender, heterosexual women more often say intimacy and commitment
are their reasons, whereas cisgender, heterosexual men more often say they are motivated
by lust and a desire for physical pleasure. This may explain why norms regarding
monogamy differ between gay and lesbian relationships—one recent large-scale study
across eight European nations demonstrated that while lesbian and gay couples report
similar investments in long-term commitment, lesbians place a greater premium on
monogamy and gay men report greater comfort with open relationship. Regardless of
sexual orientation, men are more likely to engage in cuddling and kissing only when those
are a prelude to or part of sexual activity.
Women of all sexual orientations are more likely than men to focus on relationship
dynamics. Lesbian partners tend to take mutual responsibility for nurturing and
supporting relationships. Gay men, conversely, are less likely to focus on nurturing the
relationship and providing emotional support.
Committed heterosexual relationships, in general, continue to reflect many
traditional gender roles. Men tend to be perceived as the head of the family and are
expected to be good breadwinners; women tend to assume primary responsibility for
domestic labor and child care; and men tend to have greater power in families. As we’ve
noted in earlier chapters, these perceptions are increasingly at odds with reality:
Because gender distinctions are less salient, many gays and lesbians are not as bound by
roles typical in heterosexual couples. Both gay and lesbian commitments often resemble
best-friend relationships with the added dimensions of sexuality and romance. Following
the best-friends model, long-term lesbian relationships tend to be monogamous and high in
emotionality, disclosure, and support, and partners have the most equality of all types of
relationships.
Despite relatively high levels of relationship satisfaction, social stigma and anti-LGBTQ
discrimination can negatively impact the health of LGBTQ relationships. Studies
demonstrate that contextual factors, such as perceived community support, legal rights,
and/or political climate, influence levels of depression and anxiety among lesbian and gay
couples.
Gendered Patterns in Committed Relationships
Gendered orientations influence four dimensions of long-term love relationships:
modes of expressing care, needs for autonomy and connection, responsibility for relational
maintenance, and power.
Gendered Modes of Expressing Affection
As we have seen, the masculine mode of expressing affection is primarily
instrumental and activity focused, whereas the feminine mode is more emotionally
expressive and talk focused. Women often feel hurt and shut out if men don’t want to
discuss feelings and the relationship. Conversely, some men feel resentful or intruded on
when women push them to be emotionally expressive. Thus, gendered socialization may
prevent partners from recognizing one another’s ways of communicating care.
As we have seen, for many women, ongoing conversation about feelings and daily activities
is a primary way to express and enrich personal relationships. The masculine speech
community however, views solving problems and achieving goals as reasons to talk. Thus,
unless there is a problem, men often find it pointless to talk about a relationship, whereas
many women feel that ongoing talk keeps problems from developing.
Gay and lesbian couples tend to share perspectives about how to communicate
affection. Gay men generally engage in more emotional and intimate talk than straight men
but less than women of any sexual orientation. Lesbians, on the other hand, generally share
responsibility for taking care of a relationship and build the most expressive and nurturing
communication climates of any type of couple. Lesbian partners’ mutual attentiveness to
nurturing, emotional openness, and conflict resolution may explain why lesbians report
more satisfaction with their romantic relationships than gays or heterosexuals.
Gendered Preferences for Autonomy and Connection Autonomy and connection are
two basic needs of all humans. We all need to feel that we have both personal freedom and
meaningful interrelatedness with others. Yet, gender affects how much of each of these we
find comfortable. Masculine individuals tend to want greater autonomy and less connection
than feminine people, whose relative priorities are generally the reverse.
Desires for different degrees of autonomy and connection frequently generate
friction in close relationships. Many couples engage in a pattern called demand–withdraw.
In this pattern, one partner encourages the other to communicate, and the other partner
resists interaction that stifles his or her need for autonomy. The more one demands talk,
the more the other withdraws; the more one withdraws from interaction, the more the
other demands talk. Both men and women are likely to withdraw when partners demand
or request change; however, the intensity of withdrawal is greater when a woman requests
change in a man than when a man requests change in a woman. Socialized toward
independence, masculine individuals tend to be more comfortable when they have some
distance from others, whereas feminine people tend to be more comfortable with close
connections. Ironically, the very thing that creates closeness for one partner sometimes
impedes it for the other.
More hurtful than the demand–withdraw pattern itself, however, are partners’
tendencies to interpret each other according to rules that don’t apply. For instance, to think
that a man who wants time alone doesn’t love his partner is to interpret his withdrawal
according to a feminine ruler. Similarly, to perceive a woman as intrusive because she
wants intimate con versation is to judge her by masculine standards. Illustrating this
tension over autonomy and connection, a recent study revealed that teenage girls viewed
their male peers’ texts as brisk and abbreviated, while teenage boys viewed their female
peers’ texts as too long, intrusive, and including unnecessary information. By
understanding gendered patterns and preferences, we can minimize the poison of
misinterpretation and respect different needs for autonomy and connection.
Gendered Responsibility for Relational Health
Because most lesbians, like most heterosexual women, learn feminine ways of
thinking and acting; both partners tend to be sensitive to interpersonal dynamics and
interested in talking about their relationship and working through problems.
Against the standard set by lesbians, heterosexual couples do not fare as well in
distributing responsibility for relational health. In heterosexual relationships, both men
and women tend to assume that women have primary responsibility for keeping
relationships on track.
The expectation that one person should take care of relationships burdens one
partner with the responsibility of keeping a relationship satisfying. In addition, it is difficult
for one person to meet this responsibility if the other person doesn’t acknowledge and
work on matters that jeopardize relational health. The partner who is expected to
safeguard the relationship may be perceived as a nag by the one who fails to recognize
problems until they become very serious. Not surprisingly, research shows that the highest
level of couple satisfaction exists when both partners share responsibility for the
relationship.
Gendered Power Dynamics
Historically, the person who earns the most money has had the greater power in
heterosexual romantic relationships, and that person traditionally has been male. As you
might predict, problems fostered by believing that men should be more powerful are not
prominent in lesbian relationships, and lesbians tend to be particularly skilled at building
harmonious relationships with romantic partners. Gay and lesbian couples report a greater
desire for shared power and decision-making than do heterosexual couples.
As we noted in Chapter 7, the belief that men should be the primary breadwinners
doesn’t match reality for the growing number of heterosexual households in which the
woman earns as much as or more than her partner.
People who adhere to traditional views of gender in relationships are more likely to
experience a decrease in both self-esteem and marital satisfaction if the woman earns more
money.
In fact, some men who don’t have jobs in the paid labor force and whose female
partners work outside the home engage in less child care and home maintenance than do
men who have jobs in the paid labor force—as few as three hours a day. As a point of
comparison, unemployed women spend twice as much time on child care and housework
as employed women do.
Gay and lesbian couples are more likely than heterosexual couples to divide child
care and household labor equally between partners. Lesbians report greater equality in
division of labor than do gay men, and, in lieu of relying on gendered norms to divide tasks,
incorporate factors such as individual capacity and preference.
Despite its mundane quality (or perhaps because of it), the division of household
labor is not a small matter—the sharing of domestic responsibilities and chores is ranked
by married couples as the third most important factor in a successful relationship,
following fidelity and sexual intimacy. Men who share in child care tend to have
relationships that have less conflict and more satisfying sex than men who participate less
in child care.
There are multiple reasons for women’s and men’s unequal contributions to
domestic labor. One key reason is gender ideology. Men and women with more traditional
beliefs about gender are more likely than people with less traditional gender beliefs to
perceive it as appropriate for women to do most of the domestic labor. A second reason is
women’s alternatives to a relationship. Women who don’t perceive desirable alternatives
to their current relationships have little leverage to persuade their partners to participate
more in domestic labor. A third reason is commitment to equity. Most people prefer
equitable relationships— ones in which they and their partners invest relatively equally
and in which both partners benefit equally. The extent to which partners are committed to
equity affects how they divide domestic chores. A fourth reason is gender socialization.
Male socialization typically doesn’t emphasize developing skills in domestic chores,
whereas girls are often socialized to perform more traditionally “feminine” tasks such as
laundry, cooking, and cleaning. As a result, girls typically have developed skills in these
tasks by the time they set up an adult household. In addition, many women have higher
standards for housekeeping than their male partners. This may lead women to criticize
how their male partners perform the tasks and to redo or take over tasks that their male
partners aren’t performing to the women’s satisfaction. Responses like these
understandably discourage men from being active in homemaking.
Millennial men have more egalitarian views related to gender, family, and career
within marriage than men of older generations. They are more likely to aspire to being
hands-on fathers and to strike a balance between family and career. But research has
demonstrated that these aspirations do not necessarily translate into equitable divisions of
labor in the home, particularly if children join the family. One reason that aspirations may
not be realized is inflexible work policies and cultural norms. Paternity leave is not as
common or available as maternity leave, and men who take leave for family reasons may be
judged more harshly than women.
We should also note that much of the domestic work women do is more taxing and
less gratifying than that done by men. For instance, whereas many of the contributions men
typically make are sporadic, variable, and flexible in timing (e.g., mowing the lawn), the
tasks women typically do are repetitive, routine, and constrained by deadlines (e.g.,
preparing meals). Women are also more likely to do multiple tasks simultaneously (e.g.,
helping a child with homework while preparing dinner). When it comes to child care,
mothers tend to be constantly on duty whereas fathers more typically take responsibility of
occasional fun child care activities, such as trips to the park or zoo.
Finally, gendered power dynamics underlie violence, which is a means of
exercising dominance over others. intimate partner violence is one manifestation of
gendered power dynamics. Not confined to any single group, violence cuts across race,
ethnicity, class, and sexual orientation. At least 30% of women worldwide have been
victims of intimate partner violence (Prevalence of Domestic Violence, 2013). Intimate
partner violence is not confined to adult relationships. Approximately 1 in 10 high school
students reports being physically hurt by a girlfriend or boyfriend, and 1 in 3 high school
students reports psychological violence from a girlfriend or boyfriend.
Violence is inflicted primarily by men, most of whom have been socialized into
masculine identities. We’ve seen that personal relationships reflect the expectations and
orientations encouraged by feminine and masculine socialization. Gender differences
surface in the ways that partners express and experience closeness, preferences for
autonomy and connection, the distribution of responsibility for maintaining relationships,
and power dynamics.
SUMMARY
Communication between friends and romantic partners is a powerful predictor of
relationship strength and satisfaction. For this reason, understanding how gender shapes
communicative practices can help us create better friendships and romantic relationships.
Today, many people feel that traditional gender roles aren’t satisfying or realistic. As
people discover the limits and disadvantages of traditional gender roles, they are
experimenting with new ways to form and sustain relationships and their own identities
within those relationships. For instance, some men choose to be stay-at-home dads because
they find greater fulfillment in nurturing a family than in pursuing a career in the paid
labor force. Some women discover that they are more effective and more fulfilled by work
outside the home than by work inside it. And many people balance home and paid work in
ways that transcend traditional roles. Examples such as these remind us that we can edit
cultural scripts, using our own lives to craft alternative visions of women, men, and
relationships.
