Outer Rim Territories

Musings, ramblings, and nonsense from the fringe of space and time

« Back to blog

Married Women Happiest in a Blend of Modern and Traditional

CitizenLink - Features - Married Women Happiest in a Blend of Modern and Traditional

Married Women Happiest in a Blend of Modern and Traditional by Wendy Cloyd, assistant editor Study reveals mutual commitment, fair division of chores, plus emotional and financial support equal contentment. Bradford Wilcox, Ph.D. The level of marital happiness experienced by women is highest when the marriage is a mix of both conventional and contemporary ideals, according to a landmark study by two professors of sociology at the University of Virginia. Bradford Wilcox and Steven Nock interviewed more than 5,000 married women across the U.S. to learn more about the basis for their happiness. Topping the list, a husband's emotional engagement is the biggest predictor of his wife's marital happiness — far outweighing other factors such as who does the cooking and cleaning. And contrary to many modern publications that say splitting everything from income to chores 50-50 is the way to a successful marriage, Wilcox said they found women who don't work outside the home are happier. "And women whose husbands earn the lion's share of income are happier," he said. "That's true even for couples who are both in the work force." Women also want to feel that household chores are fairly divided, he said, but what's deemed "fair" is not necessarily 50-50. "It's a subjective perception," he said, "related to the wife's sense that her husband is making a valuable contribution to the family, both his paid work as well as the things he does with the kids, as well as housework and whatever else the family needs to get by." Wives who share regular church attendance and a strong commitment to a lifelong marriage with their spouse are most likely to report marital bliss, as well. "The shared idea that the marriage should only be ended under extreme circumstances — in other words people who are opposed to divorce and committed to lifelong marriage — it is related to security and trust," he said. One of the most surprising finds was that even women who consider themselves more feminist-minded are happier when their marriage includes more traditional roles. "They are happier when their husbands are the primary breadwinners, when they share church attendance, and when they share a strong normative commitment to marriage," Wilcox said. "So, it's interesting that even people that, in a sense, 'talk left' are happier when they 'walk right' when it comes to their marriages." Wilcox said a lot of people are surprised that neo-traditional women are happier. "I use the term 'neo-traditional' just basically to signal that there are elements of the new and the old in a happy marriage for women," he said. "The new is that there's focus on the husband being emotional, and that wives think things are fair in their marriage. The old is that wives who have a husband who makes more than two-thirds of the income, who shares church attendance and who shares a strong normative commitment to marriage are remarkably more happy in their marriages than women who do not have all three of those elements."

Mar 08, 2006
Jason Evans Groth said...
I'd be interested in seeing an article written by a non right-wing conservative about this issue. If you Goodle "Wendy Cloyd" you'll find that she works for the Illinois Family Institute -- probably something with which most of the readers here identify. However, when someone writes an article called "Talking Points Against Homosexual Marriage" and how anti-abortion advocates are getting egged, it's no wonder that their interview of 5,000 women would turn up such results.

Women who want mutual respect in a relationship is no surprise. If you interview the right men they will say the same thing. You could also interview 5,000 men who say they are happier with their partners working, being out of the house, etc. And I don't personally know any "feminists" who don't believe in love in a relationship. These things, on my part, are anecdotal. But my point is that, just like anything else, the article written above is written for its right-wing, family-oreinted audience.

Just yesterday (and its unfortunate I can't find it now) I read an article in a newsletter that we receive at the non-profit organization for which I work that claimed that highly educated women prefer non-traditional life relationships because they allow them to (and this quote is not a true quote, but rather a recollected summary on my part) "take part in more stimulating and satisfying life activities that the traditional ideas of life relationships do not offer" -- and the examples cited were having children later in life and raising them in a more comfortable setting, choosing to not have children and, instead, fostering a deeper relationship with their partner, choosing higher-paying, more stimulating jobs, etc.

Anyway, it's interesting how bias can affect the numbers of any given article. That's really all I'm saying.

Jason

Mar 08, 2006
Christopher Gillespie said...
I’d be interested in seeing an article written by a non right-wing conservative about this issue. If you Goodle “Wendy Cloyd” you’ll find that she works for the Illinois Family Institute — probably something with which most of the readers here identify. However, when someone writes an article called “Talking Points Against Homosexual Marriage” and how anti-abortion advocates are getting egged, it’s no wonder that their interview of 5,000 women would turn up such results.

I assume you are referring to the editor's credibility. In this day and age, being of an opinion or bias as you mention later often used as a mark of poor intellect, freedom, or impartiality. For example, the Judge Roberts or Alito hearings became not about his ability to judge but the question: by what standard does he judge. Post-modern america likes to believe that all have the ability to judge right and wrong for themselves. I might call this the moving standard or the variable truth. But I digress... Focus on the Family is about helping families... and also polemicizes against cultural movements which degrade or destroy the operation of the family. I know little or nothing of Ms. Cloyd except her status within Focus on the Family. Does she have motives? Absolutely! Focus on the Family has no myth of impartiality at play in their "CitizenLink."

You might well research the authors of the study which Ms. Cloyd cites.

W. Bradford Wilcox
Steven Nock

Their study is found here:
• "What's Love Got to do With It?" (pdf)

They use external data and compile it against I believe five different husband/wife relationship models. Its a lengthy paper which I have only skimmed. It does appear thorough and scientific in approach. Here is the final paragraph from the document:

In conclusion, our results suggest that the road to successful “new families” (Goldscheider
and Waite 1991) is more circuitous and difficult than originally thought. While it is true that changes in men’s behavior are required for this transformation (Goldscheider and Waite 1991), it also appears that contemporary couples could benefit from a heightened appreciation of the role that shared religious practice and normative commitments to marriage play in supporting women’s marital quality and the expressive dimension of marital life. Our results also suggest that more traditional beliefs and practices regarding gender play a positive role in the quality and expressive character of many women’s marriages, even apart
from the dramatic shifts in gender role ideology in the last few decades. At least for many American women, this study indicates that “her” marriage is most happy when it combines elements of the new and old.

Just yesterday (and its unfortunate I can’t find it now) I read an article in a newsletter that we receive at the non-profit organization for which I work that claimed that highly educated women prefer non-traditional life relationships because they allow them to (and this quote is not a true quote, but rather a recollected summary on my part) “take part in more stimulating and satisfying life activities that the traditional ideas of life relationships do not offer” — and the examples cited were having children later in life and raising them in a more comfortable setting, choosing to not have children and, instead, fostering a deeper relationship with their partner, choosing higher-paying, more stimulating jobs, etc.

I don't mean to suggest that it is not within a women's right to choose a "non-traditional" way of life. We see this with many of our classmates where the husband is student (and often Mr. Mom) while the wife is working to support the family. This may not be ideal in our opinion but it is deemed a necessity by that couple.

Rather my inclusion of "feminism" in the first post a week or so ago was perhaps more directed again to radical feminism. The result of said movement is a pendulum swing effect which now demonizes those women who do stay at home to raise a family. Apart from tax credits, our society does little to support this "traditional" lifestyle. As well, we get bizarre looks first when we say we have four children, followed by my wife staying at home, and home-schooling pushes them over the edge. (These are lifestyle choices we have made in a concerted way to reflect our Biblical world view.)

Those who do not share this world view will make different choices. Hopefully they will be rational in their pursuit and consider long-term implications of such choices. Call us antiquated or traditional, we have chosen a model for family which we believe will best benefit our children and consequently the continuance of society and the church.

Mar 09, 2006
Jason Evans Groth said...
Chris, I am not doubting the editor's credibility -- she is certainly credible to her audience and most likely has the credentials to be credible generally. Her beliefs, however, are only credible to those who agree with her -- the same with mine and yours. "By what standard do you judge" is a fair question -- these people are dealing with gray area ideas and the justice they, supposedly, administer is Constitutionally based, supposedly, not theocratically based, supposedly. The idea of "family" is not set in stone. There are some truths but the definition of family is not one of them. I have many families. My parents and sister. My wife. My bands. Focus on the Family takes one of these definitions -- none of which apply to me as an adult -- and makes their case. Again, they are certainly credible and for those that agree with them they provide valuable services.

The authors who wrote the paper that Ms. Cloyd cites are also "conservative" or "traditional" leaning folks. I do not say this derogatoraly (sorry if I misspelled it, i'm typing this quickly). They have chosen to include factors that others wouldn't. The article I referenced did not include factors like religion or children... it only considered the relationship of the two partners. Again, I am not saying these things are not credible -- it is just important to view them within their particular contexts.

I'm not sure how to react to the "Feminism" and "Radical Feminism" argument. What I can say is this -- anyone who judges anyone else for their choices is making a mistake. Although I do not see my wife not working, or staying at home with children (although I do not believe I am entitled to this choice -- my opinion matters to her, but ultimately I am only half of her life, and there were no rules of "oberyance" in our vows), I do not think that parents who choose such a path are demons. In fact one of the biggest reasons why she and I have decided, at this point, to not have children is because we do not wish to have to keep them in daycare. I would say both my wife and myself are "radical feminists." I am proud of you, for example, for having such a large family. It suits you and it fits within your belief structure. It does not, at this point, suit me or fit within my system of beliefs. And I'm glad that my friends are procreating -- we need more of you. For questions about schooling, and such, I have no grounds to agree or disagree with your choices. All I can hope for is that whatever choice you make you do it with your whole heart. Anyone who judges outside of their context is making a mistake as well.

The point of this, however, is that "variable truth" exists, at least in terms of interpreting data. The only "truth" in the articles you and I reference are in the numbers -- conclusions arise from context, and anything can be read to mean anything you want, if you argue the logic correctly. That's all I'm saying. I hope the new addition is doing well!

Mar 10, 2006
Christopher Gillespie said...
I don't have time for a full response unfortunately. The new semester began this week and I'm loaded down with work already.

I'd like to comment on the nature of marriage and such but perhaps that would be another show (or post!)

Also, the freedom and the bondage of free will.

Perhaps also the relation of Platonic philosophy which appears in your response which is conflict with biblical philosophy (if such exists... we might call it apologetics.)

Finally the term "partner" versus spouse and the extension "partnership" versus marriage. It is unfrotunate that we have legalized "no fault" divorce. I'm sort of a libertarian anyway so it's a shame more people don't look at marriage in terms of the biblical reality of one flesh and see it as a cooperative enterprise subject to the whim and fancy of our will. The consequence of such thought of marriage (and that of contract or partnership language) is the permission of separation.

I've not heard any civil or non-Christian vows but I would assume they would leave out the "let no man rend asunder" bit.

Of course, I will delightfully avoid discussion of sex in discussing this language for fear of avoiding coursework more than I already have.

Thanks for your post. I am enjoying our real world (outside the glass bubble of seminary) discussions. At some point theology has to hit the road and be challenged. Many fail to see this necessity.

Chris