I. WOMEN'S POSITION IN MARRIAGE - WHO HAS THE POWER?
(The following is from Jesse Bernard: The Future of Marriage)

A. Shocks of Marriage - Downward status for a woman.

1. Pygmalian Effect - the wife adjusts to the husband. She "Dwindles" into a wife over time.
a) She loses independence and impulse expression
b) She makes more adjustments.
     Friends
     Money
     Decisions
     Work - additional work (women still do most of it) Second Shift
     Primary care of the children
     Church/religious values
     Emergencies
c) A wife has no status
d) No promotion goes with the work she does.
   Read Housewives in the Mental Hospital
   Inequities in Past Marriage Laws

2. Commitment has a Male Bias
Double standard (Jesse Bernard p 116)
Women share provider role, may not get alimony, share child support (or pay child
support),
    ---yet they still do the housework.
    ---some laws are not in their favor (property ownership)
    ---won't get as much pay.
    ---after divorce, husband may not make child support pymts
c) If the woman sacrificed her career for the marriage, and the marriage ends, she is at a
disadvantage.
    In the past, women had financial security.
    Job market
    Care of children
    Society doesn't value women as much as men, or pay them as much as men.
Read Jesse Bernard p 119

3. Marriage Gradient - Women marry up, which creates inequality.
a) Man has more power
b) Because man has more status, woman is more likely to sacrifice for him job and
position. (Jesse B. p146)
c) Strong women are socially sanctioned. "Bitch" "Nag"

Read Jesse Bernard p148
"a calm type of woman remains unmarried or,...marriage has disturbing effects upon women" Willoughby

4. In spite of that, either arranged or self-choice marriages tend to compliment each other
a) Dependent woman with a dominant man
b) Insubordinate woman with older or gentler man
c) Strong woman with a covertly dependent man

B. Living Situation
50s, 60s Women were isolated in suburbia. Increasing unhappiness women, alcoholism
was a problem for some. Women became neutered acc. to Jesse Bernard.
a) Husbands went out to work
b) Servants left the household (they no longer had servants)
c) Suburbia developed
d) Women were isolated -
Read Raschke p 126

Jessie Bernard, p116
"Practically all of the thinking about commitment which marriage represents has, until recently, been by and, for the most part, for men. It is, in fact, quite astonishing how little women themselves have been invited to participate in the discussion, or even listened to when they have participated."

Bernard explains that even in the nonconventional relationship, in which sexual freedoms are thought to be preferable to older values, there is often a double standard.

"Nor does the husband escape his old hang-ups. He is the verbal champion of modernity and the relatively clear theoretician of [sexual] permissiveness. So the wife, being only an amateur in the new life style, takes him seriously. Since she has been led to believe that sexual possessiveness and monogamous obligations are passe in the new life style, she may think it all right to engage in sexual activity outside the marriage.. The husband is shocked; he had expected the double standard to be too deeply ingrained in her for that. She soon learns that to him sexual activity outside the marriage is either never all right in actual practice or permissible only under circumstances defined by him."

Bernard p 146
"All right then. Take a young woman who has been trained for feminine dependencies, who wants to "look up" to the man she marries. Put her at a disadvantage in the labor market. Then marry her to a man who has a slight initial advantage over her in age, income, and education, shored up by an ideology with a male bias and an institutional framework tilted in his favor. Denigrate her status further at marriage by lowering her occupation still more. Then expect an egalitarian relationship?

Yet, in spite of everything we can do to disqualify this young woman, it does sometimes happen that, because of the subversiveness of nature which does not distribute human characteristics in nonoverlapping curves, like Lady Macbeth she does have the talent and temperament to run the show."

Bernard p 148
"If it is true that women can prevail in marriage as well as men can, does it make any difference, really that wherever the power has actually rested, the assumption has always been made that it rested with the husband?

Yes, it does, for dominance has one effect if exercised by the husband and quite a different one if exercised by the wife. The wife who is dominant is a misfit in the relatinship as prescribed by the marital structure; the husband who is, is not. There is probably enough plasticity in the heredity of human beings that most can be successfully socialized into the models demanded by their culture, but it will be more costly for some than for others.

Among men, power and prestige go together. And prestige can more than compensate for lack of power. Not so among women. Women have to pretend that they do not have power and to convince the world that they do not. In the case of men, failures to conform to the institutional imperatives can be masked more easily than in the case of women, for wives try to save their husbands' faces. They tend to act out their part in a way that reassures husbands. They try to build them up, support them, give them at least the illusion that they conform to the prescribed pattern. Wives are less likely to have this support. They are less likely to be protected by husbands trying to give them the illusion of conformity.

Even worse. Because of the male bias which has shaped our mentality for so many years, not only do women who exercise power receive no reward for it in the form of prestige or deference, but they are actually punished. They are henpecking their husbands. They are castrating bitches, or worse. They are unwomanly, unnatural, deviant and hence execrable. Unless, that is - and this is the heart of the matter - they are clever enough, as they usually are, to hide their light under a bushel, and to convince everyone, including their husbands, how brighly the masculine light shines.

There is some evidence that under the impact of the egalitarian ideal things are changing, though, and that ,modern women are less and less inclined to play charades. This is a change with, apparently, disturbing effects on husbands."

II. TRANSACTIONAL ANALYSIS
Transactional analysis is a psychological theory that accompanies the Games People Play approach to interaction. The basic idea is that the kind of interaction individuals will engage in will - to some extent - be determined by the individual's image of their self-worth, or self esteem. If a person feels good about him or herself, it is a situation of "I'm OK." If he or she feels good about the other person, it is a situation of "You're OK."

Conversely, if a person does not feel good about him or herself, it is "I'm not OK," and if he or she does not feel good about the other person, it is "You're not OK."

There are four different dynamics that are possible.
I'm not OK, You're OK
I'm not OK, You're not OK
I'm OK, You're not OK
I'm OK, You're OK
An example of I'm not OK, You're OK might be the situation of meeting someone of high social status, or accomplishment. Obviously you will feel inferior to a degree. On a more common scale, many persons feel dissatisfied with themselves, but look upon others as being OK. This colors the relationship - putting the You're OK person in the position of a parent, of sorts. That is, the parental role of understanding why the person is not OK is called for. It is not an equal relationship.

An example of I'm not OK, You're not OK can be seen in a couple in which both parties are addicts, or alcoholic. An individual doesn't regard him or herself highly, but neither does he or she regard the other highly, because, although they may be a companion, they have the same faults. This could also be seen in the situation where a friend is scolded for loosing his or her temper. In retaliation, they might say, "Well, look at you. You also loose your temper and cause problems." It may be an equal relationship, but there is likely to be hostility, or other unhealthy aspects to the relationship.

An example of I'm OK, You're not OK could be found in a family in which one partner is an alcoholic. The non-alcoholic partner may look upon the alcoholic partner in a kind of derogatory way. While the variance may be true, it cannot be a healthy, egalitarian relationship. Another example would be a teen ager or young adult who rebells against his or her parents. In that case, parents are not OK because they are too demanding, or too old fashioned, or too unstylish, or whatever. This relationship implies a kind of arrogance on the part of the I'm OK person.

The I'm Ok, You're OK relationship is the most healthy. It is an adult relationship without undue expectations and demands from the other. It is a relationship in which both partners fulfill their responsibilities.

III HOUSEWIVES IN THE MENTAL HOSPITAL
Carrol Warren (1987) studied the records of a group of housewives committed to mental hospitals in California in the late 1950s. and early 1960s. The women were diagnosed as schizophrenics: psycotics who have lost all contact with reality. But their own complaints were those of typical housewives: they felt lonely, depressed, burdened by all their housework, cut off from other adults, and overly dependent upon their husbands. They complained of a lack of communication in their marriages and felt that their husbands had little interest in them except for the domestic and sexual services they provided. None of these women worked outside the home except for two who worked for their husbands - a situation providing no relief from the family circle. A number of these women said that they would like to work but their husbands would not let them. This was during the height of the wave of adulation of traditional home life during the 1950s. Some women in the sample who very strongly wanted a career were regarded as crazy for having that ambition; it was taken to be a rejection of femininity and a symptom of mental illness.

It was not their feelings of depression and loneliness that got them in the hospital but the fact that their behavior created troubles for their husbands. Typical troubles involved being sloppy and inadequate at housekeeping or child care, or money - spending too much, frivolously or crazily buying things the husband felt he could not afford. Often troubles involved sex as well, although this did not always lead to the husband defining his wife as psychiatrically disturbed. If the wife reacted by extreme withholding of sex, the husband was often angry but tended to regard the behavior as part of the typical female pattern. If, on the other hand, a wife was overly demanding sexually, this more likely raised suspicions of psychiatric problems.

Husbands, however, did not necessarily jump to the conclusion that their wives were mentally ill and ought to be committed, even though under California law at the time either spouse had the power to have the other committed, with the concurrence of one admitting physician. Most men resisted this course of action for some time because they did not want to lose their wife's services as housewife or her availability as a sex object. When troubles with spending, housework and/or sex made the rewards no longer worth the cost, though, they would finally have their wives committed. This situation could be defined as a family emergency, and husbands usually got female relatives to help them out by taking over the housework.

In the hospital, the women often felt some respite from their housework, but it was hard for them to get away from their husbands and families psychologically. Many felt guilty about "abandoning" them, and several actually developed the delusion that their husbands and children were there in the hospital with them. Within a uyear, though, most of the women were out of the hospital, many of them having experienced electroshock treatment. There were numerous readmissions over the next few years, but by and large their social adjustment improived. The mental hospital did seem effective in getting the women in line. It was not always used merely for home troubles. One woman decided to leave her husband and had an affair with a fellow patient while on leave from the hospital, whereupon her permanent release was blocked by her irate husband, who procured papers to have her permanently committed.

Most of the women returned to their household responsibilities calmer and wiser. Many of them said in interviews that they were determined to behave and do what they were asked and that they did not want to be sent back to the hospital again.

IV. INEQUITIES IN PAST MARRIAGE LAWS
In The Marriage Contract (1981) Lenore Weitzman presents some examples of the ways that laws regulating marriage gave a husband control over his wife's property. These summaries come from actual legal cases.

Husband's Control of Wife's Earnings
Florence and Samuel Jorgenson, like most people married in the forties, chose a traditional relationship: Samuel brought home the paycheck, while Florence remained in the home to care for their sons, Bill and Ed. Each week, Samuel turned his paycheck over to Florence; she did the family's bookkeeping, paid the bills, and rationed out the money for household and personal expenses.

The Jorgensons didn't have much money. For most of their married life, they lived with Mrs. Jorgensen's mother, not even able to afford a home of their own. But Florence believed that her boys should go to college, and she managed to save a little here and there for their education. She economized in all the little ways in which a housewife can economize. Occasionally, her mother made a donation to the college funds. Slowly, but surely, two savings accounts grew.

When Florence Jorgenson died in 1963, she left her teenage sons two savings accounts: $2,000 in trust for Ed and another $3,000 in trust for Bill.,

Samuel Jorgenson remarried and moved out of his mother-in-law's house. $5,000 seemed like a lot of money to him. He wanted it, and he went to court to get it. "I earned the money," he argued, "and I never gave it away. I merely entrusted it to Florence to pay the bills. The surplus belongs to me." The court agreed - despite the fact that there would have been no surplus without Florence's careful economizing, despite the fact that Florence's mother had contributed some of the funds. "The general rule in separate property states," said the court, ".. is that the excess left after paying the joint expenses of…the family remains the property of the husband." The boys college money went to Samuel and his new wife. Florence's long years of scrimping and saving were an exercise in futility.

Husband as "Head and Master"
Married at 18. Helen Tarbel worked double shifts as a nurse to support her husband through four years of college. Her salary paid for all household expenses, and she saved enough to buy a small home. Her husband was unemployed for most of the year after he graduated from college, and Helen continued to support the family. When her husband proposed that they mortgage the house to borrow $5,000, Helen objected. But under the Louisiana "head and master" rule her husband had the full power to mortgage the home she bought - and to control all of their community property - without even asking her. So he ignored Helen's objection, and without her signature or consent, mortgaged the home to take out a loan. When he failed to repay the loan the credit company sought to foreclose the mortgage and take their home. Helen Tarbel objected and challenged the constitutionality of the head and master rule. It was unfair, she said, for her husband to have the power to mortgage the home without her knowledge or permission. And it was unfair that he should control every cent she earned and every item she bought. But the Louisiana Supreme Court denied her appeal, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case, thus leaving her creditors to foreclose the mortgage and letting the head and master rule stand.

Husband's Right after Wife's Death
Fred and Betty Nelson were married in 1950. They lived on a farm in Illinois that Fred had inherited before they were married. At first Betty was a housewife, caring for their children, performing the usual household tasks, gardening, preserving large quantities of food, and cooking five or six daily meals for the hired hands who worked on the farm. Later when the children were in school, Betty took on an outside job. She continued to do the traditional tasks, and in addition contributed part of her income for family expenses.

After 22 years of marriage, Fred divorced Betty. The court awarded her no alimony. Her share of their marital property consisted of only her own clothing and personal effects, a few household items that she owned prior to the marriage, and an automobile which she had purchased in her own name with her own funds. The house and furnishings, the farm with its machinery and livestock, the savings - all went to Fred.

Betty appealed the decision. "Surely after 22 years of hard work, I am entitled to at least a portion of the assets I helped to accumulate," she thought. But the legal system saw things differently. The appellate court upheld the lower court's division of property.

A spouse seeking part of the other spouse's property, explained the court, must show that she or he made valuable contributions to the property's worth. The court defined a valuable contribution as "money or services other than those normally performed in the marriage relation"; Betty's years of cooking, cleaning, and child rearing did not meet the court's definition of "valuable."

But the money Betty contributed for family expenses from her outside employment was "valuable"; would she not be entitled to some recompense for this financial contribution? No, said the court; she did not keep clear records of what property was acquired through her own effort, and consequently all property was properly awarded to her husband.

V. EXCHANGE THEORY
This is a more generic form of Resource Theory. Basically it was developed by Emerson in the second half of the 20^th century to look at what is being exchanged in a relationship. Originally this theory examined only material items that were exchanged. This is true of Resource theory which looked at the comparative salary of the man and the woman. Later it was realized that other things could also be exchanged - non-material things.

In the family, exchange theory can be used to understand relationships between men and women.
If you combine it with conflict theory, which focuses on power, you can examine the power differential as well as the economic differential.
Who earns the most money?
Who has the most social status?
Who brings the most resources to marriage?
Who has the dominant personality?

Social convention gives men the advantage in most areas. Whoever has the most resources has the advantage. Just as you can buy something I have if you have enough money to compensate me for its loss, someone who has more social resources can "buy" the other person.

According to this theory, because men have more resources and power, women are more likely to do the work in the home.

What recourse do women have? What recourse do men have? If he leaves she is worse off - so he, rather than she, can say, "If you don't do the work, then…." Divorced women almost always have a lower economic situation. Men's economic situation tends to increase after divorce, whereas women's economic situation tends to decrease.

According to conflict theory (based on Marx's conception of the proletariat (workers) rebelling against the bourgeoise (capitalists), women who have no power should come to realize their powerless situation, and decide to rebell.

Is that what is happening? According to some researchers, women's anger is rising toward men. In 1970, 70% of the women said that men are kind, gentle and thoughtful. In 1989, only 50% said the same.