Conceptualizing Gender in Marriage: The Case of Marital Care

Authors(s): Linda Thompson

Source: Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 55, No. 3 (Aug., 1993), pp. 557-569
Published by: National Council on Family Relations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/353338
Accessed: 26-03-2016 16:37 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/353338?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

National Council on Family Relations, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Journal of Marriage and Family

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 202.28.191.34 on Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:37:55 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 LINDA THOMPSON University of Wisconsin-Madison

Conceptualizing Gender in Marriage:

The Case of Marital Care

Sex differences and sex roles have dominated the

cused on sex differences and sex roles, the gender

study of gender in families. Several scholars offer

perspective provides new concepts, questions,

an alternative approach thatfocuses on the insti-

and connections. Although Ferree (1990) makes a

tutional and interactional context. This perspec-

good case for a new perspective, she does not

tive links four levels of analysis-broader socio-

have ample space to detail the perspective so that

historical context, immediate context, interaction-

scholars can recognize and apply the essential

al processes, and individual outcomes-into a

components and connections. My aim is to pre-

single process of the social construction of gen-

sent the gender perspective as an organizational

der. The purpose of this paper is to synthesize

scheme that readers can apply to their own sub-

and elaborate current thinking on the gender per-

stantive areas. The perspective has broadened

spective. The paper is structured so that the read-

widely my own thinking about gender and care in

er is presented with the basic concepts, questions,

marriage. I use marital care, therefore, to illustrate

and connections at each level of analysis. I use

the perspective.

care in marriage to illustrate the perspective.

Feminists offer the gender perspective as an

Care is the activity of protecting and promoting

alternative to sex-difference and sex-role ap-

another person's welfare. Rather than ask

proaches to gender. Most family scholars use sex

whether women or men are more caring, the gen-

as a variable in analyses and report sex differ-

der perspective asks what conditions are neces-

ences, or they study sex roles by assessing expec-

saryfor women and men to care.

tations about appropriate attitudes and activities

for women and men. Several scholars have ad-

My purpose in this paper is to expand thinking

dressed thoroughly the problems with these pre-

about gender in marriage. In her decade review

vailing approaches to gender (Connell, 1985;

paper on feminism and family research, Ferree

Ferree, 1990; Hare-Mustin, 1988; Stacey &

(1990) presented the gender perspective on fami-

Thorne, 1985; West & Zimmerman, 1987).

lies. The gender perspective moves us beyond

Rather than belabor this critique, I give a brief

gender as an individual property and draws our

summary for readers unfamiliar with this litera-

attention to the institutional and interactional con-

ture.

text of gender. After years of family research fo-

Gender as an individual property leads to re-

search that emphasizes stable sex differences be-

tween women and men rather than similarities be-

Child & Family Studies, 1430 Linden Drive, University of tween women and men or diversity among

Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706.

women and among men. "Sex" and "gender" are

variables with ambiguous meaning, so when dif-

Journal of Marriage and the Family 55 (August 1993): 557-569 557

This content downloaded from 202.28.191.34 on Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:37:55 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 558 Journal of Marriage and the Family

ferences emerge between groups of women and proach, but can encompass social role analysis. In

men, researchers fill in a meaning that suits them. both cases, prevailing approaches limit our think-

"Sex" and "gender" stand for something, but we ing about gender.

are never sure what that something is. Too often, To move beyond gender as an individual prop-

when we fill in meaning, we come up with im- erty, we must consider the social construction of

plicit essential nature explanations: Women are, gender. The social construction of gender encom-

by nature, this way; men are that way. passes individuals, but embeds them in social

Many feminists criticize the sex role and so- contexts and processes. Reid and Whitehead

cialization approach to gender. Stacey and Thorne (1992) define the social construction of gender in

(1985) criticize the approach because it masks

this way: "Gender is a cognitive and symbolic

power, inequality, contradiction, struggle, and construct that helps individuals develop a sense of

change. They argue that the study of sex roles re- self, a sense of identity that is constructed in the

tains its functional assumption of consensus, process of interacting with others within a given

equality, and continuity. They also note that human community" (p. 2). Gender constructs

scholars often treat sex roles as an individual

emerge from and are enacted in the interactions of

characteristic, ignoring the historical and struc- daily life. Gender constructs vary across cultures

tural context of gender inequality. Risman and

and historical time. In every culture, however,

Schwartz (1989) argue that the sex-role socializa-

gender is embedded in ideology and related to

tion approach focuses on motivation (gender as

disadvantage, stratification, and hierarchy.

internalized expectations that explain why some- The gender perspective is eclectic. It draws on

one would want to act womanly or manly) and ig-

any conceptual approach that moves the analysis

nores the social demands of the immediate con- of gender away from individual and functional

text. West and Zimmerman (1987) contend that

explanations. Connell (1985) states that the gen-

roles are learned and enacted in specific contexts, der perspective "is not a tightly-knit logical sys-

whereas women and men "do gender" all the

tem. It is, rather, a network of insights and argu-

time, in all contexts. They suggest that gender is ments about connections" (p. 261). The central

something evoked, created, and sustained day by

feature of the gender perspective is analysis of

day through interaction.

gender at multiple levels of analysis. Ferree

Feminists' overriding criticism of prevailing

(1990) emphasizes the connections among institu-

approaches is that gender is treated only as a

tional, interactional, and individual levels of anal-

property of individuals. They argue that too many

ysis. The organization scheme in this paper ac-

scholars use sex and sex role as catchall concepts

knowledges four levels of analysis: broader socio-

with ambiguous meanings, ignore similarities be-

historical context, immediate context, interaction-

tween sexes and diversity within sex, assume con-

al processes, and individual outcomes. To move

sensus and coherence regarding gender ideals, ne-

away from thinking about gender as an individual

glect the institutional context of gender inequali-

property, feminist scholars focus on social struc-

ty, neglect the social demands of the immediate

ture, symbolic culture, historical change, the im-

context, treat gender as no more than a passively

mediate situation, and everyday relations among

learned role, and ignore the social interaction in-

people (Deaux & Major, 1987; Ferree, 1990;

volved in creating gender.

Gerson & Peiss, 1985; Hochschild, 1989;

The sex-difference approach-using sex as a

LaRossa & LaRossa, 1981; Risman & Schwartz,

variable and filling in meaning and explanation

1989; Sherif, 1982; Wharton, 1991). No one

afterward-is unacceptable. The sex role ap-

scholar, however, explicitly conceptualizes gen-

proach is more complicated. Komarovsky (1992)

der as encompassing all four levels of analysis.

argues that, although gender as a role is only a

My purpose is to integrate, organize, and illus-

small part of the social construction of gender,

trate current thinking about the gender perspec-

role analysis can inform our understanding of

tive. The organizational scheme of this article is

gender. She notes that role is not an individual

heuristic and is meant to help readers think about

property, and she emphasizes the social nature of

gender in new ways, frame their family research

roles and socialization. Scholars can use the con-

within a gender perspective, and contribute to our

cept of social role to link social structure and in-

cumulative knowledge about gender. The head-

teraction and locate rebellion against convention-

ings for sections represent the major concepts in

al cultural scripts. The gender perspective, there-

the gender perspective. The scheme is descriptive

fore, is an alternative to the sex-difference ap-

and can be used to organize a literature review or

This content downloaded from 202.28.191.34 on Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:37:55 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Conceptualizing Gender in Marriage 559

generate research questions. Within the four lev-

tivity? What cultural scripts and metaphors in-

els of analysis, and the subheadings within them, form the everyday gender activity of women and

I put together a portrait of the social construction men? In what ways is gender activity related to

of gender in marriage. I illustrate the perspective

political and economic conditions? How does po-

with marital care, but readers can use the organi- sition in the social hierarchy-inequalities by

zational scheme to analyze gender in intimacy,

race, class, gender, and sexual preference-shape

power, sexual relations, childbearing, commit- gender activity?

ment, and other aspects of marriage.

I define care as the activity of attending and

Sexual Division of Labor: Separate Spheres and

responding to another. Each partner is sensitive to

the Distinction between Women and Men

the suffering, desires, and needs of the other part-

ner. Marital partners strive to meet each other's

Cancian (1987) describes how the rise of a market

needs, prevent harm, and take positive action to

economy in the 19th century changed marriage

protect and promote each other's welfare. Care is

and family life. Once economic production

a central component of love in marriage (Cancian,

moved out of households, the boundary between

1987). I assume that caring for others is healthy

family and workplace and the division of labor

and necessary for both women and men (Tavris,

between women and men became more distinct.

1992). Both women and men should be responsi-

Family life, including care, became the sphere of

ble for care. Both women and men can be loving

women. Life outside of the home, including wage

and caring, abusive and neglectful. Rather than

work, became the sphere of men. The physical

ask whether women or men are more caring, the

boundary between home and workplace becomes

gender perspective asks what conditions are nec-

less rigid as women become wage workers.

essary for women and men to be caring. Because

Gerson and Peiss (1985) pose the question

the literature on care in marriage is somewhat

whether everyday, private interactions become

spare, I sometimes draw on related literature-

more important for distinguishing gender when

concerning love and intimacy in marriage, family

boundaries in the broader context are blurred. For

work and care-to illustrate the gender perspec-

example, women returning to Orthodox Judaism

tive.

exaggerate gender differences in private life-in-

cluding care as women's domain and material

concerns as men's domain-to protect themselves

BROADER SOCIOHISTORICAL CONTEXT

from what they experience as confusion about

The broader sociohistorical context includes both

gender and denigration of domesticity in the

structural and symbolic conditions (Ferree, 1990).

broader context (Kaufman, 1985). Even at the

Structural conditions draw our attention to the na-

workplace, however, women tend to have jobs

ture of institutions, how institutions change his-

that require them to manage emotions, and serve

torically, and how they create or constrain possi-

and care for others (Hochschild, 1983).

bilities for interactions between people. Symbolic

The ideology that accompanied the split be-

conditions refer to systems of meaning: myths,

tween family and workplace in the 19th century

images, stories, metaphors, and ideologies. There

included a split between feminine love and mas-

is usually a prevailing (sometimes referred to as

culine self-development (Cancian, 1987). The

dominant) system of meaning that supports the

ideal woman was attentive, compassionate, com-

way society is arranged, but there are also other-

forting, and cooperative. The ideal man was am-

often conflicting-systems of meaning that peo-

bitious, independent, and self-made. These sym-

ple can draw on to guide action (Swidler, 1986).

bolic distinctions constrain possibilities for care

In the broader context of gender, we consider

in marriage. The split between feminine love and

how structural and symbolic conditions draw dis-

masculine autonomy suggests different ways of

tinctions between women and men, inform every-

caring for women and men. The image of femi-

day gender activities, and provide one gender

nine love gives women responsibility for love and

with an advantage over the other (Ferree, 1990).

defines love as self-sacrifice, emotional warmth,

Feminist scholars recognize the broader con-

expressiveness, vulnerability, and sensitivity. The

text of gender--the mingling of structural and

image does not acknowledge the ways that men

symbolic conditions--by asking four general

convey care: sex, and doing practical things for,

questions: What is the connection between sexual

providing for, and spending time with another.

division of labor, separate spheres, and gender ac-

The image of masculine autonomy does not allow

This content downloaded from 202.28.191.34 on Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:37:55 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 560 Journal of Marriage and the Family

men to admit their need for care, and the image of (Cancian, 1987). Freedom means the right to de-

feminine love does not offer men gender-appro-

fine one's own preferences and desires and to

priate ways to display care. Couples who abide by

make personal choices and pursue them, as long

this symbolic distinction often find themselves at as one does not interfere with the similar freedom

cross-purposes. Wives push for more attention,

of others (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, &

responsiveness, communication, and closeness;

Tipton, 1985). Self-development, not love, seems

husbands withdraw and withhold. This scenario

to be the lot of both women and men. Neither

renders women unhappy with husbands who are

women nor men are responsible for care.

silent and insensitive, and men unhappy with

Hochschild (1989) notes that this image of mar-

wives who do not recognize their best efforts at

riage is especially pronounced in upper-middle-

care (Tavris, 1992). The symbolic distinction be-

class career couples. Both partners use wage work

tween women and men preserves the notion of

as a justification for neglect at home and cut back

separate spheres, justifies the sexual division of

on their ideas about what people need to thrive.

labor, and creates personal dilemmas for couples.

The metaphor for the independent marriage is the

contract and economic exchange. Because the in-

dependent ideal reflects and serves the market

Cultural Scripts: Images of Marriage

economy, it enjoys structural and symbolic sup-

Cancian (1987) suggests three cultural images for port in the broader context (Bellah, et al., 1985;

marriage in contemporary America: companion- Wexler, 1983).

ship, independent, and interdependent marriages. Faced with a choice between companionship

These images offer different systems of meaning marriage where women care and independent

about marriage, different ideals about the spheres marriage where no one cares, the companionship

of activity for women and men, and different no- marriage has strong appeal. The prevailing as-

tions about care and gender. sumption is that if women do not care for others,

Dizard and Gadlin (1990) describe the ideal of no one will. Cancian (1987) offers a third image

the companionate marriage: The family is com- of marriage: the interdependent ideal of marriage

prised of husband, wife, and their children. This that emphasizes care and commitment. Both part-

small family is economically and emotionally ners are obliged to nurture the other, attend and

self-sufficient. Intense emotional bonds among respond to the other's needs, and encourage and

immediate family members, especially between promote the other's projects. The image is of a

wives and husbands, are the heart of family life. self flourishing within a loving relationship. Both

To ensure that there is enough money and emo- partners acknowledge their need for one another

tion to meet the needs of the marital pair, ties to and commit themselves to a relationship that will

others outside of the marriage-kin and friends- endure. Bellah and his colleagues (1985) found

are constrained. There is a clear difference be- that many people experience interdependence in

tween home and the world outside. Home is the marriage but have no language to express this

only place to find love, consideration, compas- kind of connection. The interdependent ideal en-

sion, and cooperation. Home is a haven from the joys less structural and symbolic support than the

cold, uncaring, and competitive world outside. companionship and independent ideals of mar-

There is a clear division of labor. Women are riage.

keepers of the idealized home, and men are wage

workers who brave the wider world. This image

Political and Economic Conditions:

of marriage places care within the realm of the

Attentive Institutions

immediate family and makes it the responsibility

of women. It offers women no excuses or justifi-

In a broader context of economic and political in-

cations for failures to care. Men's participation in

dividualism, women and families become the sole

public life, however, especially their wage work,

source of love and care (Barrett & McIntosh,

provides them with a ready excuse for absence

1982; Dizard & Gadlin, 1990). Families are the

and neglect in domestic life (LaRossa, 1988). In

only legitimate repository of consideration, coop-

the companionate ideal, men have a structural and

eration, compassion, and responsibility for others.

symbolic advantage over women.

What would it mean to shift some of the responsi-

The ideal of independent marriage emphasizes

bility for care to the broader community? Dizard

self-reliance, full expression of personal needs

and Gadlin point out that this is not just a shift of

and desires, and freedom from obligation

family functions to the larger society, but that so-

This content downloaded from 202.28.191.34 on Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:37:55 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Conceptualizing Gender in Marriage 561

ciety's institutions-workplace, government ser-

in her study, most believe there is a shortage of

vices, schools-would be more responsive to the kindness, respect, and love in marriage. The

personal needs and welfare of people. Bellah and experience of injustice does not always foster

his colleagues (1990) speak of attentive institu- sensitivity to others. Johnson (1990) found that

tions, contexts outside of families where people the more discrimination black police officers ex-

trust one another, cultivate one another's possibil- perience on the job, the more problems they have

ities and purposes, and feel responsible for one with affection, emotional support, and getting

another's welfare. what they want from marriage.

Without attentive institutions, there is little More than white couples, black women and

structural support for care in either public or pri- men share a similar position in the economic hier-

vate life. What would care in marriage be like if archy. The income disparity between men and

the workplace was not structured so that many women among blacks is less than it is among

men experience home and their wives' attention whites (Farley & Bianchi, 1991). More than in

as compensation for what they have to put up white couples, wives in black couples earn as

with at work (Hunt & Hunt, 1987)? What would much or more than their husbands (Glick, 1988).

care in marriage be like if so many couples with Economic equality in black marriages, however,

small children did not have to work nonoverlap- does not necessarily foster care. Symbolic condi-

ping hours to manage child care (Presser, 1988)? tions may get in the way-for example, the pre-

Wider political and economic conditions create vailing myth that black women have an economic

dilemmas of care for wives and husbands. An un-

advantage over black men (Cazenave & Smith,

derstanding of care in private life requires an 1990; Collier & Williams, 1982). Structural con-

understanding of public policies that foster re- ditions make it hard for black couples to realize

sponsibility-for example, family leave, flexible the prevailing companionate ideal of marriage

hours, and child care (Kessler-Harris, 1987). (Staples, 1985): separate spheres and a clear divi-

sion of labor, home as a haven for husbands, and

marriage as economically and emotionally self-

Position in the Social Hierarchy.

sufficient. Because of culture or economic neces-

The Case of Black Marriages

sity, many black women and men may rely less

In the gender perspective, analysis includes posi- on marital care than on care spread among ex-

tion in the social hierarchy-inequalities by race, tended kin (Aschenbrenner, 1978; Stack, 1974).

class, gender, and sexual preference (Baca Zinn,

1990). I use care in black marriages to illustrate

IMMEDIATE CONTEXT

the analysis of gender and race.

Stack (1990) argues that, because black

Risman and Schwartz (1989) focus on the imme-

women and men share a similar position in the

diate situation and everyday interaction, and how

social hierarchy, they also share the everyday cir-

these microstructural conditions shape gendered

cumstances of life and, therefore, have similar

self-concepts, beliefs, and behaviors in intimate

characteristics and activities. She suggests that

relationships. Women and men differ in the im-

the collective experience of social and economic

mediate conditions in which they live. How can

injustice gives black women and men similar dis-

we account for gender differences by considering

positions to care and makes them especially sen-

the different contexts for women and men? For

sitive and responsive to the needs of other family

Risman and Schwartz, the question is the follow-

members. Hill Collins (1989) argues that the ing: If women and men are in the same social

black community provides institutional support

context, do they think and act in similar ways?

for care through its families and churches.

For example, women tend to be demanders in

If black women and men have a special sensi-

marriage and, men, withdrawers (Christensen &

tivity for others, many unfortunately do not ex-

Heavey, 1990). Christensen and Heavey found,

press this capacity in marriage. Brown and Gary

however, that, regardless of sex, the partner who

(1985) conclude that marriage is not an emotion-

is pushing for change tends to demand, and the

ally supportive relationship for most black

partner who is asked to change tends to withdraw.

women. Less than a third of married women cite

It is the partner's position in the immediate social

their husbands as the first person they would turn

structure, not gender, that accounts for behavior.

to if they had a serious problem. Barnes (1983)

Because of the ideology of separate spheres and

notes that, among the middle-class black couples

feminine love, wives are more likely than hus-

This content downloaded from 202.28.191.34 on Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:37:55 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 562 Journal of Marriage and the Family

bands to take responsibility for ensuring the qual- likely than men to perform care to please or serve

ity of marriage (Cancian, 1987). This responsi- their partners. They did certain things because

bility puts women in the position of pushing for their husbands liked or wanted it, and they did

change (Komter, 1989). things for their husbands that the men could have

Feminist scholars who argue for the gender done for themselves. The authors conclude that

perspective recognize the immediate context by women's care may reflect deference to men and

asking three general questions: Are differences power in marriage. They did not, however, assess

between women and men more aptly accounted power. No researcher, as yet, has considered the

for by power relations than by gender? What are diversity of women's power in marriage.

the gender expectations and opportunities in the We should not be too quick to condemn inter-

wider web of relationships of women and men? personal sensitivity as the activity of the power-

How does the immediate situation-social expec- less. We must assess power carefully and analyze

tations and practical demands and constraints- what kinds of power are connected with particular

contribute to the social construction of gender? aspects of a gendered activity such as care. For

example, Snodgrass (1985), in an experimental

study of nonintimate pairs, found that those in the

Power as Context

subordinate role, regardless of sex, were sensitive

to how their dominant partners felt about them

Power, as a contextual condition of marriage, is

but were not particularly sensitive to how their

primary to the analysis of gender (Deaux &

partners felt about themselves. Men's relative

Major, 1987; Risman & Schwartz, 1989; Sherif,

control over resources, then, may render wives

1982; Tavris, 1992). It is part of what Thorne

especially sensitive to how much their husbands

(1982) calls the "tangle of love and domination"

love them but may have little to do with how sen-

of family life (p. 12). How is power related to the

sitive wives are to the desires and needs of their

display of gender in marriage? Are gender differ-

husbands. Speculations about the connection be-

ences more aptly accounted for by power rela-

tween the subordinate position of wives and their

tions between women and men? If women and

attentiveness and responsiveness to their hus-

men are in the same position of power, do they

bands remain untested.

act in similar ways?

Lakoff (1990) argues that womanly and manly

ways of communicating are based on power. To

Web of Relationships

get their needs met and survive without control

over resources, it is necessary for women to listen Relationships outside of marriage-children,

and go along, to be delicate, indirect, and deferen- friends, kin, and work-mates-shape the display

tial. Such womanly talk expresses a lack of inter- of gender in marriage. Women and men often

est in power. Manly talk is powerful-direct, have different responsibilities in their web of rela-

clear, and take-charge. Lakoff argues, then, that tionships, and these differences, in part, account

attentive, sensitive, responsive, and supportive for gender differences in the enactment of care in

communication is a strategy used by the power- marriage. The ideal of companionate marriage

less. There are consistent, though mostly small, encourages both partners to rely on each other

gender differences in communication, but it is a rather than others. Women, however, also are en-

matter of interpretation whether women's couraged to attend to others besides their hus-

communication style (e.g., asking questions and bands. According to Riessman (1990), for

smiling) indicates powerlessness-appeasement women, this creates a dilemma in marriage. In ac-

and submissiveness-or care-attentiveness and counts people give of their divorces, Riessman

responsiveness (Aries, 1987; Hall, 1987). Power notes that, for most women, marriage is just one

and status are rarely assessed in this research; of many close ties. Many wives report that trou-

rather, women are assumed to be less powerful ble arose when they were needed by family and

than men because of their position in society. friends but husbands resented the time wives

Goode (1982) suggests that wives, as subordi- spent with others. For most men, marriage is

nates, are more motivated to anticipate and attend

exclusive, primary, and private; they want the un-

to the desires of their husbands than the other way divided attention of their wives. Some husbands

around. Dressel and Clark (1990) found that, believe that their wives were not as dependent on

more than men, women report anticipation of an- them as they "should be" because their wives

other's needs as care. The women also were more could turn to others in hard times.

This content downloaded from 202.28.191.34 on Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:37:55 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Conceptualizing Gender in Marriage 563

In their web of relationships, women and men

demands of the situation can contradict, even

have different opportunities for care, and different

overcome, the conventions of gender.

expectations and experiences of care (Risman & In some situations, conventional gender expec-

Schwartz, 1989). Chesler and Barbarin (1984) de- tations and cues are especially salient (Deaux &

scribe how friends care for couples who have a

Major, 1987; West & Zimmerman, 1987).

child with cancer. Some friends respond according Consider, for example, women and men as wage

to what they see as the emotional division of labor

workers in need of care from their spouses be-

within marriage. Friends comfort the women, cause of stress at work. Women and men in the

who, in turn, comfort their husbands. Friends,

same situation face different expectations. In the

especially men, feel sympathy for the men who

broader context, we noted how the larger culture

have to be "the rock," but are reluctant to offer

supports the notion that men deserve care from

help. Friends, it seems, are caught up in the sym-

their wives because of their status as wage work-

bolic distinction between love and autonomy as

ers. Unlike men's wage work, there is contention

gendered activities. The material division of labor

about the legitimacy of women's wage work, and

within marriage also affects access to support.

this influences the support women receive for

Chesler and Barbarin note that friends can help

work-related needs and problems (Ratcliff &

with the practical things women usually do- Bogdan, 1988).

chores, shopping, and child care-but cannot help

Weiss (1990) reports on the marriages of suc-

men with their primary task-going to work.

cessful men and their wives. Most husbands ex-

In their same-sex networks, women and men

pect wives to support their wage work by keeping

have different gender norms regarding care.

the home a smooth-running haven, accepting and

Johnson and Aries (1983) report that, among

admiring them as husbands and providers, tolerat-

women friends, conversation is essential to rela-

ing spillover of work stress at home, and not ask-

tionships. It is a source of support, encour-

ing questions about their workday unless they

agement, and confirmation. Half of the married

bring up the topic. Rarely do husbands talk open-

women in their study said they could talk to

ly of their work problems. Weiss concludes that

women friends in ways they could not to their

men lose self-respect if they ask their wives for

husbands. Swain (1989) reports that, among men

help with work problems. Many husbands, then,

friends, closeness is defined by joking around,

expect their wives to attend and respond to their

doing things together, and doing things for each

needs as wage workers, but care must occur in a

other. Most of the men recognize teasing and

way that preserves their aura of autonomy.

laughing as safe ways for men to convey affec-

Women and men often use situations of care and

tion. Several men noted, however, that when they

autonomy to display gender and distinguish them-

are with women, they are expected to converse as

selves as women and men (Cancian, 1987). These

a way to convey closeness. We do not know what

husbands think about their wives' wage work

reference groups are relevant to partners as they

differently than they think about their own

negotiate gender in marriage (Sherif, 1982).

(Weiss, 1987). Husbands often feel unselfish be-

cause they make due with less attention and ser-

vice at home so that their wives can fulfill a per-

Immediate Situation

sonal need to work. Consequently, men are less

The immediate situation-social expectations and likely than women to provide their wage-working

practical demands and constraints--contributes to partners with unconditional support and protec-

the social construction of gender. Berk (1985) tion from stress at home (Bolger, DeLongis,

suggests that women and men often are caught be- Kessler, & Wethington, 1989; Pearlin & McCall,

tween the "shoulds" of gender ideals and the 1990). Gender is highly salient in this situation.

"musts" of their situation. That is, they are caught When the situation demands care, both women

between symbolic and structural conditions. To and men are capable of providing it (Risman,

analyze the gender "shoulds" of a care situation, 1987). Kaye and Applegate (1990) report on men

Risman and Schwartz (1989) suggest that we ask

caregivers, most of whom care for wives who suf-

whether women and men in the same situation

fer from Alzheimer's disease. The men see them-

face the same expectations. To analyze the

selves as self-sufficient, gentle, compassionate,

"musts" of a care situation, we look at the oppor-

warm, and loving. They report caring activities

tunities, demands, and constraints of immediate

such as listening, and showing concern, sympa-

circumstances (Risman & Schwartz, 1989). The

thy, and affection. In the broader context, we

This content downloaded from 202.28.191.34 on Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:37:55 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 564 Journal of Marriage and the Family

noted the symbolic distinction between women broader context; they may be specific to the cou-

and men as providers of care. Under what condi- ple (Hochschild, 1989; LaRossa & LaRossa,

tions can men traverse this symbolic boundary 1981; West & Zimmerman, 1987). Certain situa-

and display care? I suggest that men are more tions are particularly likely to evoke these expec-

likely to display care when there is a clear need tations. One example is when the partner is a hus-

for care, no one else is around to provide care, band distressed about work.

and the recipient is dependent. The partner then conveys his gender expecta-

tions for the other using words or action. For ex-

ample, the husband crumples into his easy chair

INTERACTIONAL PROCESSES

to show that he is worn out from work and needs

some care (Weiss, 1990).

Several scholars argue that we should analyze

At this point, self interprets the situation and

gender by looking at persons in relationship and

the partner's action and perhaps concludes that

their interactional processes (Deaux & Major,

this is an occasion that is relevant to her gendered

1987; Risman & Schwartz, 1989; West &

definition of self. This interactional situation pro-

Zimmerman, 1987). According to this approach,

vides self with an opportunity to "do" gender, to

gender is accomplished through everyday interac-

display herself as a woman as well as to display

tion. We create ourselves as gendered persons

care (West & Zimmerman, 1987). Gendered defi-

through our relations with others. Moment by

nitions of self are idiosyncratic, complex, and

moment, day by day, people negotiate gender

often incoherent. For example, a wife may see her

with one another. Feminist scholars who argue for

husband as more caring than herself, but feels

the gender perspective recognize interactional

pleasantly feminine when she cares for him. The

processes by asking the following general ques-

definition of self will only guide behavior if it is

tions: During interaction, how do women and

activated by the partner and the situation. People

men confirm and disconfirm each other as women

pay more attention to information that is relevant

and men? How do partners sustain or change their

to their self-concept. If a woman defines herself

gender meanings and arrangements through daily

as caring, she will be attentive to cues from the

communication, negotiation, and conflict? How

partner and the situation that allow her to display

do partners create a gender strategy that recon-

her care.

ciles their gender beliefs, emotional needs, ac-

Next, the self acts. She may or may not fulfill

tions, and structural realities of life?

the expectations of her partner. Self is least likely

to fulfill expectations that contradict her self-con-

cept. In this case, the wife responds to her hus-

Partners in Interaction: Confirming and

band's cue for care-crumpling into the chair-

Disconfirming Gender

and confirms his gender expectations of her by

Deaux and Major (1987) offer the most thought- keeping the kids out of the way, sitting down with

ful analysis of the interactional processes of gen- him for a while, and bringing him a beer. Note

der. Thus far, their work is largely speculative. that she may not ask him how his day went be-

They focus on two people-partner and self-in cause she has beliefs and expectations of her own

interaction, each with gender definitions and ex- regarding gender-that is, conversation is not the

pectations of self and other. Interaction is an oc- way to convey care to men (Weiss, 1990).

casion for evoking gender expectations from the Women may also help men keep their depen-

partner and confirming-or disconfirming-gen- dence secret by being silent or covert about their

der definitions of self. I use marital care, husband husbands' needs. Deaux and Major note that

as partner, and wife as self to illustrate Deaux and power is particularly important at this point in the

Major's model. Overall, the social process moves interactional process. Self may fulfill the part-

from partner to self, then back again. ner' s expectations, even if they are contrary to her

To begin the interactional process, the partner self-concept, if the partner is powerful. That is, a

has beliefs and expectations about gender. For ex- wife may be solicitous to a weary husband, even

ample, women are caring and responsible for if she has no notion of herself as caring, if he has

care. Note that these expectations are connected more power than she does in marriage.

to the broader context as well as the immediate Finally, self and partner interpret self s action.

situation (Risman & Schwartz, 1989). These gen- When self is confirming her definition of self by

der expectations, however, may not reflect

fulfilling the partner's expectations, this, in itself,

conceptions of femininity and masculinity in the is gratifying. It can be alienating, however, to ful-

This content downloaded from 202.28.191.34 on Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:37:55 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Conceptualizing Gender in Marriage 565

fill gender expectations that contradict definition and wives and husbands often use wage and fami-

of self (Jack & Dill, 1992). Partner evaluates self ly work to convey care for one another in gen-

and holds her accountable for her actions as dered ways. Together, day by day, partners create

womanly or manly (West & Zimmerman, 1987). gender strategies so that family work gets done

If she confirms her partner's gender expectations, and beliefs and needs are compromised as little as

there may be little recognition of her actions. For possible. Myths are often necessary to accomplish

example, Hochschild (1989) describes the lack of this end. For example, Hochschild offers the fol-

gratitude for care activities that simply confirm lowing narrative: Nancy's gender identity encom-

people's beliefs about women and family work. passes both home and wage work. She wants her

husband, Evan, to share equally in family work

There may be conflict if self does not fulfill her

and pushes him to do so. Evan's gender identity

partner's expectations. The taken-for-granted na-

is founded on wage work. It is all right if Nancy

ture of gender expectations are most apparent

works, as long as she takes responsibility for fam-

when expectations are not fulfilled. Husbands and

ily work as well. For years, Evan passively refus-

children often complain when women fall short of

es to share housework and child care. Nancy and

gender expectations for care and service (Zavella,

Evan quarrel and nag at each other. They have

1987). Self may get disconfirming messages from

different ways of conveying care. Evan conveys

her partner when she violates gender expectations

love and care through sex. Nancy feels loved and

but get few confirming messages when she ful-

cared for when Evan makes dinner or cleans up

fills expectations.

for her. Nancy, worn out from squabbling and

working a second shift at home, is no longer in-

Gender Struggles and Strategies

terested in sex. Both partners feel a scarcity of

care.

My illustration, no doubt, underestimates the

To resolve the situation, Nancy and Evan cre-

daily struggle of gender relations. For one thing,

ate a family myth, a shared gender strategy:

both wife and husband are self and partner at the

Nancy is responsible for the upstairs of the house,

same time, negotiating two gender identities

and Evan is responsible for the downstairs. The

through their interaction. More so than Deaux and

downstairs includes the garage, Evan's workshop,

Major (1987), some scholars emphasize the con-

and the dog. Nancy does all other housework and

flict and negotiation associated with the enact-

child care. Nancy also cuts back to part-time

ment of gender in marriage (Ferree, 1990; Gerson

wage work. Now, both Nancy and Evan see their

& Peiss, 1985; Hochschild, 1989; LaRossa &

marriage as equal and fair. This gender strategy

LaRossa, 1981). They focus on the daily struggle

allows Nancy to confirm her gender belief in

to sustain and change gender arrangements and

meanings. They attend to the specific ways that egalitarianism and meet her emotional need for

partners confirm and disconfirm each other's gen- peace at home and for some consideration of her

der-how they accommodate, resist, challenge, need for help around the house. The strategy al-

hold accountable, excuse, justify, coerce, cajole, lows Evan to confirm his gender belief that fami-

and collude.
ly work is women's work and meet his emotional

Interaction is where women and men create

need for peace at home and for sexual relations.

gender identities within broader and immediate To analyze gender strategies and struggles, we

contexts that structure their possibilities.

examine interactional processes in marriage. We

Hochschild (1989) offers the notion of gender

consider the gender beliefs, expectations, and

strategy to connect social organization and identi-

identities of both partners. We examine what part-

ty. A strategy is an enduring way of organizing a

ners do and how they think and feel about what

life that makes sense given the structural and

they do. The contradiction between what partners

symbolic context in which people find themselves

do (Nancy does most of the family work) and

(Swidler, 1986). Strategies allow for human agen-

what it means to them (Nancy and Evan see their

cy while acknowledging other forces. According

marriage as egalitarian) reveals the struggle over

to Hochschild, partners in marriage strive to fit

gender. Women and men do not simply conform

their gender beliefs, emotional needs, and actions

to structural conditions and confirm cultural im-

to the structural realities of their lives through

ages, nor do men one-sidedly impose their wills

gender strategies.

upon women. Instead, both partners collaborate to

According to Hochschild (1989), family work

create strategies that reconcile personal and rela-

is at the heart of gender strategies in marriage,

tionship concerns with the realities of life. Al-

This content downloaded from 202.28.191.34 on Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:37:55 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 566 Journal of Marriage and the Family

though partners struggle to come up with a shared ities for autonomy for wives and husbands?

gender strategy, the outcomes of the strategy still

Cancian (1987) speculates that the interdependent

may differ for wives and husbands.

marriage is best for women and men. It provides

security and support so that partners do not feel

they will be attacked or abandoned, but also pro-

INDIVIDUAL OUTCOMES

vides freedom to explore the self and new ways

of relating.
It is arbitrary to refer to something as an outcome.

It is only an outcome at a certain time. We stop

the action, and call what is happening an out-

Gender Consciousness

come. I refer to these interrupted states as out-

comes because they flow from all that has come Gerson and Peiss (1985) offer a continuum of

before, but they also influence social processes gender consciousness as outcome. At one end of

yet to come. Certain outcomes are common to the the continuum are those women and men who do

analysis of gender in marriage: gender differences not think about or question conventional gender

in behavior, gender identity, gender conscious- arrangements. At the other end are those who de-

ness, and personal well-being. fine their interests as gender-based. These women

and men may be feminists who want to change

current gender arrangements or anti-feminists

Gender Differences

who want to conserve conventional arrangements,

but both groups think about their lives in terms of

Gender differences themselves are an outcome.

gender. Note that gender consiousness is not the

Rather than rely on some notion of essential dif-

same as general beliefs about gender stereotypes

ference between women and men, the purpose of

and sex roles. Gender consciousness is central to

the gender perspective is to account for differ-

whether or not partners, particularly women, push

ences by analyzing the social conditions that cre-

for change in their marriages. Women's sense of

ate difference. Gender enactments, then, are the

fairness about family work, including care, is an

outcome (Deaux & Major, 1987; West &

example of gender consciousness as outcome

Zimmerman, 1987). The processes we have de-

(Thompson, 1991).

scribed produce gender differences in behavior.

In the end, we must ask how the activities of care

are distributed between wives and husbands.

Personal Well-Being

Thorne (1982) emphasizes that gender relations in

Gender Identity

families produce different outcomes for women

and men. Tavris (1992) encourages us to stop

We also are concerned about gender identity as an

asking who is better at love and care and start

outcome (Deaux & Major, 1987; Sherif, 1982).

asking about consequences: What are the conse-

Given the social processes we have described,

quences for women and men when people believe

how do women and men define themselves as

that women are better at love? Who benefits from

women and men, and as feminine and masculine?

such beliefs? What are the consequences for

People use their identity-sense of self-to orga-

wives and husbands of the distribution of care in

nize their experience and activity. Identity is a

marriage? We should consider, then, the personal

foundation for human agency (Wharton, 1991).

well-being of women and men as an outcome of

We should consider how women and men identi-

the social construction of gender. Note that per-

fy themselves as caring and how this sense of

themselves is connected to their experience of sonal well-being-physical and mental health-is

themselves as women and men. not the same as adjustment and satisfaction

(Ferree, 1990).
Many scholars worry that women's responsi-

bility for care undermines their autonomy. An au- Jack and Dill (1992) explore how cultural im-

tonomous self-one who is free to pursue her peratives about the "good woman" and the way to

own projects--is an important aspect of gender

act in intimate relationships are revealed in cogni-

identity to consider. An outcome to consider is

tive schemas and related to depression in women.

how women and men identify themselves as both

They consider two schemas that govern interper-

caring and autonomous rather than divide those

sonal behavior: care as self-sacrifice (putting the

qualities between the sexes. Given the diverse

needs of others before the self as a way to secure

patterns of care in marriage, what are the possibil-

relationships) and silencing the self (suppressing

This content downloaded from 202.28.191.34 on Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:37:55 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Conceptualizing Gender in Marriage 567

one's own needs and desires as a way to avoid women and stratification processes that sustain

conflict and loss of relationship). The authors sexual inequality.

found pressure to sacrifice and silence the self as- I hint at an agenda for gender theorists, but this

article is not for theorists. It is for researchers who

sociated with loss of self (anger at having to dis-

tort oneself to secure relationships) and depres- want to think about gender in new ways.

sion. Researchers can use the organizational scheme to

organize a literature review or generate research

questions. Both endeavors will help researchers

CONCLUSION

see how their work fits with others' and add to cu-

mulative knowledge about the gender perspective

The gender perspective provides new concepts,

in family life.
questions, and connections. The strength of cur-

No researcher can attend to all the levels of

rent thinking about the gender perspective lies in

analysis in the gender perspective. If readers find

new concepts and questions at multiple levels of

one engaging concept, question, or connection in

analysis; the weakness lies in the connections

this rendition of the gender perspective and decide

among the levels of analysis. As I moved through

to include it in their next project, then I have

the four levels of gender analysis, I tried to illus-

achieved my aim. We do not have to attack the en-

trate how each level of analysis enrichs the previ-

tire gender perspective at once to move forward.

ous level. For example, I noted how the ideal of

Attention to any one of the levels beyond the indi-

companionship marriage informs gender expecta-

vidual moves us beyond prevailing approaches. It

tions in the immediate context. I cautioned

moves us beyond thinking about gender as an es-

against the assumption that sexual inequality in

sential, immutable property of individuals or as a

the broader context renders women subordinate-

coherent package of conventional, cultural expec-

and, hence, caring-in marriage. I described how,

tations. The perspective encourages researchers to

in their interactions, wives and husbands both re-

ask new questions and discourages us from too-

produce and resist cultural scripts for gender.

easy answers that blame society, women, or men

The gender perspective makes a good case for

for current gender arrangements.

how each level of analysis enriches our under-

standing of the social construction of gender. It

does not tell us how these levels of analysis inter-

NOTE

act with one another to construct gender. We do

This paper was presented at the Theory Construction

not know under what conditions gender at one

and Research Methodology Workshop, National

level of analysis is reproduced, revised, or resist-

Council on Family Relations, 1992. I thank Katherine

ed at another level of analysis. These connections

Allen, Myra Ferree, Jean Giles-Sims, and Barbara

are important because they have implications for

Risman for their thoughtful comments on previous ver-

sions of the paper.

social change.

A good gender theory must explain how social

change occurs. A good gender theory would link

REFERENCES

the multiple levels of analysis into a single pro-

Aries, E. (1987). Gender and communication. In P.

cess of the social construction of gender

Shaver & C. Hendrick (Eds.), Sex and gender (pp.

(Wharton, 1991). This is the direction in which

149-176). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

our theorizing should move. Our thinking about

Aschenbrenner, J. (1978). Continuities and variations in

gender should move from a perspective to a theo-

black family structure. In D. B. Shimkin, E. M.

ry. To explain social change, we need theory that Shimkin, & D. A. Frate (Eds.). The extendedfamily

in black societies (pp. 181-200). Chicago: Mouton

makes dialectic causal connections between insti-

Publishers.

tutional, interactional, and individual levels of

Baca Zinn, M. (1990). Family, feminism, and race.

analysis. Gender at the institutional level is not

Gender & Society, 4, 68-82.

automatically reproduced at the interactional and

Barnes, A. S. (1983). Black husbands and wives: An as-

sessment of marital roles in a middle-class neighbor-

individual levels. People do not simply conform

hood. In C. E. Obudho (Ed.), Black marriage and

to cultural scripts about gender. They challenge,

family therapy (pp. 55-73). Westport, CT:

resist, and create their own gender strategies.

Greenwood Press.

People also use their personal innovations and

Barrett, M., & McIntosh, M. (1982). The anti-social

struggles in everyday family life to transform cul-

family. London: Verso.

Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W.M., Swidler, A.,

ture and society. A good gender theory should tell

& Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of the heart: Indi-

us how to combat gender distinctions that devalue

vidualism and commitment in American life. Berke-

This content downloaded from 202.28.191.34 on Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:37:55 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 568 Journal of Marriage and the Family

ley, CA: University of California Press. differences: Implications for theory and practice.

Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W.M., Swidler, A., Family Relations, 37, 36-41.

& Tipton, S. M. (1990). The good society. New Hill Collins, P. (1989). The social construction of black

York: Alfred A. Knopf.

feminist thought. Signs, 14, 745-773.

Berk, S. F. (1985). The genderfactory: The apportion-

Hochschild, A. (1983). The managed heart. Berkeley:

ment of work in American households. New York: University of California Press.

Plenum.
Hochschild, A. (1989). The second shift: Working par-

Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R., & Wethington,

ents and the revolution at home. New York: Viking.

E. (1989). The contagion of stress across multiple

Hunt, J. G., & Hunt, L. L. (1987). Male resistance to

roles. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, role symmetry in dual-earner households: Three al-

175-183.
ternative explanations. In N. Gerstel & H. Gross

Brown, D. R., & Gary, L. E. (1985). Social support net-

(Eds.), Families and work (pp. 192-203).

work differentials among married and nonmarried

Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

black females. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9,

Jack, D. C., & Dill, D. (1992). The silencing the self

229-241.
scale: Schemas of intimacy associated with depres-

Cancian, F. M. (1987). Love in America: Gender and

sion in women. Psychology of Women Quarterly,

self-development. New York: Cambridge University 16, 97-106.

Press.
Johnson, L. B. (1990). The employed black: The dy-

Cazenave, N. A., & Smith, R. (1990). Gender differ-

namics of work-family tension. In H. E. Cheatham

ences in the perception of black male-female rela- & James B. Stewart (Eds.), Black families:

tionships and stereotypes. In H. E. Cheatham & J. Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 217-223). New

B. Stewart (Eds.), Black families: Interdisciplinary Brunswick: Transaction.

perspectives (pp. 149-170). New Brunswick:

Johnson, R., & Aries, E. (1983). The talk of women

Transaction.
friends. Women's Studies International Forum, 6,

Chesler, M. A., & Barbarin, O. A. (1984). Difficulties 353-361.

of providing help in a crisis: Relationships between

Kaye, L. W., & Applegate, J. S. (1990). Men as elder

parents of children with cancer and their friends.

caregivers: A response to changing families.

Journal of Social Issues, 40, 113-134.

American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 60, 86-95.

Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1990). Gender and

Kaufman, D. R. (1985). Women who return to orthodox

social structure in the demand/withdraw pattern of

Judaism: A feminist analysis. Journal of Marriage

marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social

and the Family, 47, 543-551.

Psychology, 59, 73-81.

Kessler-Harris, A. (1987). The debate over equality for

Collier, B. J., & Williams, L. (1982). The economic sta-

women in the workplace: Recognizing differences.

tus of the black male: A myth exploded. Journal of

In N. Gerstel & H. E. Gross (Eds.), Families and

Black Studies, 12, 487-498.

work (pp. 520-539). Philadelphia: Temple

Connell, R. W. (1985). Theorizing gender. Sociology,

University Press.

19, 260-272.
Komarovsky, M. (1992). The concept of social role re-

Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into

visited. Gender & Society, 6, 301-313.

context: An interactive model of gender-related be-

Komter, A. (1989). Hidden power in marriage. Gender

havior. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 369-389.

& Society, 3, 187-216.

Dizard, J. E., & Gadlin, H. (1990). The minimalfamily.

Lakoff, R. T. (1990). Talking power. New York: Basic

Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Books.

Dressel, P. L., & Clark, A. (1990). A critical look at

LaRossa, R. (1988). Fatherhood and social change.

family care. Journal of Marriage and the Family,

Family Relations, 34, 451-457.

52, 769-782.
LaRossa, R., & LaRossa, M. M. (1981). Transition to

Farley, R., & Bianchi, S. M. (1991). The growing racial

parenthood: How infants change families. Beverly

differences in marriage and family patterns. In R.

Hills, CA: Sage.

Staples (Ed.), The blackfamily: Essays and studies

Pearlin, L., & McCall, M. (1990). Occupational stress

(4th ed., pp. 5-22). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

and marital support: A description of microprocess-

Ferree, M. M. (1990). Beyond separate spheres:

es. In J. Eckenrode & S. Gore (Eds.), Stress between

Feminism and family research. Journal of Marriage

work andfamily (pp. 39-60). New York: Plenum.

and the Family, 52, 866-884.

Presser, H. B. (1988). Shift work and child care among

Gerson, J. M., & Peiss, K. (1985). Boundaries, negotia-

young dual-earner American parents. Journal of

tion, consciousness: Reconceptualizing gender rela-

Marriage and the Family, 50, 133-148.

tions. Social Problems, 32, 317-331.

Ratcliff, K. S., & Bogdan, J. (1988). Unemployed

Glick, P. C. (1988). Demographic pictures of black

women: When 'social support' is not supportive.

families. In H. P. McAdoo (Ed.), Blackfamilies,

Social Problems, 35, 54-63.

(2nd ed., pp. 111-132). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Reid, B. V., & Whitehead, T. L. (1992). Introduction.

Goode, W. J. (1982). Why men resist. In B. Thorne &

In T. L. Whitehead & B. V. Reid (Eds.), Gender

M. Yalom (Eds.), Rethinking the family: Some femi-

constructs and social issues (pp. 1-9). Urbana:

nist questions (131-150). New York: Longman.

University of Illinois Press.

Hall, J. A. (1987). On explaining gender differences:

Riessman, C. K. (1990). Divorce talk: Women and men

the case of nonverbal communication. In P. Shaver

make sense of personal relationships. New

& C. Hendrick (Eds.), Sex and gender (pp.

Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

177-200). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Risman, B. J. (1987). Intimate relationships from a mi-

Hare-Mustin, R. T. (1988). Family change and gender

crostructual perspective: Men who mother. Gender

This content downloaded from 202.28.191.34 on Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:37:55 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Conceptualizing Gender in Marriage 569

& Society, 1, 6-32.

Risman, B. J., & Schwartz, P. (1989). Beyond gen-

dered: A microstructural view of intimate relation-

-oldi-e amiyRsac

ships. In B. J. Risman & P. Schwartz (Eds.),

Gender in intimate relationships: A microstructural

approach (pp. 1-9). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Sherif, C. W. (1982). Needed concepts in the study of

gender identity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 6,

375-398.
INVENTORY OF

Snodgrass, S. E. (1985). Women's intuition: The effect

MARRIAGE AND

of subordinate role on interpersonal sensitivity.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, FAMILY

146-155.

LITERATURE

Stacey, J., & Thorne, B. (1985). The missing feminist

revolution in sociology. Social Problems, 32, Vol. XVIII 1991-92

301-316.

Stack, C. B. (1974). Sex roles and survival strategies in

an urban black community. In M. Z. Rosaldo & L.

IMFL is the world's most comprehensive biblio-

Lamphere (Eds.), Woman, culture, and society (pp.

graphic listing of literature in the family social

113-128). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

sciences. Volume XVIII of this continuing series in-

Stack, C. (1990). Different voices, different visions:

dexes thousands of articles from a wide variety of

Gender, culture, and moral reasoning. In F.

professional journals and books.

Ginsburg & A. L. Tsing (Eds.), Uncertain terms:

Negotiating gender in American culture (pp.

Information is cross-referenced by author, subject,

19-27). Boston: Beacon Press.

and key word in title, in such timely topics as:

Staples, R. (1985). Changes in black family structure:

The conflict between family ideology and structural

o AIDS/HIV * Family Law

conditions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47,

o Intermarriage * Cohabitation

1005-1015.

o Blended Families * Rape

Swain, S. (1989). Covert intimacy: Closeness in men's

o Family Therapy * Spouse Abuse

friendships. In B. J. Risman & P. Schwartz (Eds.),

o Families at Risk
* Sex Therapy

Gender in intimate relationships: A microstructural

approach (pp. 71-86). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Non-Member Rate $134.95

Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and

NCFR Member Rate $49.95

strategies. American Sociological Review, 51,

273-286.

Tavris, C. (1992). The mismeasure of women. New

York: Simon & Schuster.

Thompson, L. (1991). Family work: Women's sense of

fairness. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 181-196.

WORK AND FAMILY

Thorne, B. (1982). Feminist rethinking of the family:

ABSTRACTS
An overview. In B. Thorne & M. Yalom (Eds.),

Rethinking the family: Some feminist questions (pp.

1-24). New York: Longman.

I;M
Detailed bibliographic infor- Assu v Pcre

Weiss, R. S. (1987). Men and their wives' work. In F.

mation on the work and family

J. Crosby (Ed.), Spouse, parent, worker: On gender

field. Approxiately 500 sources

and multiple roles (pp. 109-121). New Haven, CT:

cross-referenced in appropriate

Yale University Press.

subject areas including:

Weiss, R. (1990). Bringing work stress home. In J.

Eckenrode & S. Gore (Eds.), Stress between work

* Child Care e Dual Career Families

andfamily (pp. 17-37). New York: Plenum.

* Parental Leave e Household Labor

West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender.

* Shift Work
e Commuter Marriage

Gender & Society, 1, 125-151.

* Job Loss/Unemployment e Retirement

Wexler, P. (1983). Critical social psychology. Boston:

* Employee Benefits e Farm Families

Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Wharton, A. S. (1991). Structure and agency in social-

Non-Member Rate $29.95

ist-feminist theory. Gender & Society, 5, 373-389.

NCFR Member Rate $24.95

Zavella, P. (1987). Women's work and Chicano fami-

lies. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

For ordering information contact: DataTRAQ Interna-

tional, Inc., P.O. Box 488, Anoka, MN 55303-0488,

Tel./FAX (612) 755-4867

These publications are produced and distributed for the National

Council on Family Relations by DataTRAQ International, Inc.

JMF.93

This content downloaded from 202.28.191.34 on Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:37:55 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms