Psychology of Marraige Roles (Why Complentarianism Doesn't Work Based on Gender)

[SnowyMacie]

Please note the faith group before responding. Thank you!

I think one of the most overlooked things behind the whole complentarianism vs egalitarianism debate is the psychology behind each of the views. The first of which says that men and women are different, they are designed for different purposes, and have a different psyche. It may not be to the extreme of "men are from Mars and women are from Venus", but we've all seen and read things that perpetuate the notion that men and women are psychologically distinct. The problem with that view of gender is that it while it can be true, it is not necessarily true.

Humans are born with all of their personality and psychological traits, but they're not necessarily born with a complete blank slate either. However, one of the things that we do learn through our environment is our own designated role in life, and this learning can have a huge impact on our thoughts and behaviors. Immediately from birth we dress boys and girls differently, give them different compliments (when is the last time you ever heard someone say a little girl has "strong muscles" or a little boy is "sweet"), and give them different toys to play with. The problem is not that we do this, which is what many far-left people think, but that we don't actually realize what we are doing. There are these pesky things called Modeling, and Conditioning, and this is how children learn our social norms. Our social norms have changed over time, for example, pink used to be the color for boys. While I do think that it's only good to teach children social norms, we need to be mindful that that is all they are, is social norms, and that's it okay to be different.

I am not discussing what our society defines as gender, but how psychology talks about gender. I think it's important to understand how God has designed the human mind and behaviors, not what society says that should be. Your psychological gender comes down to four things, social role based on your physical sex (role), psychological traits (masculinity v femininity), your personal identification of one's own gender based on an internal awareness (identity), and how you express all of these traits (expression). In other words, it's a cluster of various psychological traits and behaviors, and whatever culture says "that's this". However, often times what happens is we look at culture first and then align ourselves to fit into our culture, but what occurs if you remove culture from gender entirely. In other words? What does being male or female look like psychologically outside of external influences?

The answer is that men and women are not that different. There seems to be very few traits that have a significant difference in terms of male and female, even though these traits may be expressed completely differently. There is way too much overlap and not enough differences to say that men and women have to two different psychologies, and much less that it's anything inbred within us and not the result of our culture. What the research does show is that individuals are individuals and individuals are going to have differences, we were not all created the same. That's why complentarianism technically works, because people are different and it's best to marry someone who compliments you, stronger in areas you are weaker in, you help them by being stronger in areas they are weaker in. However, it has nothing to do with the sex of the spouse.

 

[Anguspure]

I might tend to agree with you based on some of the things that I found in my own relationship that surprised me.
However it has always amazed me that I can sit and talk with a man from another place in the world, from a different culture altogether who has a wife also from a different place and culture, and end up discussing exactly the same issues that we have with our women in exactly the same way.
This tells me that there is a genuine gender characteristic that transcends any role that nurture of circumstance, culture or individuality has to play.

 

[HereIStand]

Yes and no, based on the recent book Sex Scandal: The Drive to Abolish Male and Female by Ashley McGuire. There is room for flexibility based on circumstances and personalities within a marriage. However, men and women react differently at home and at work because they are different. Stress is created in a marriage when a woman involuntary works (or works more than she wants to) outside the home. Likewise, stress can occur for a man who is unable to work (or works less than he wants to) outside the home. Also, at home and at work, men are more risk-oriented than women.

 

[bekkilyn]

I am very anti-complentarianism when using very vague and general traits such as gender or race, and find less and less scriptural basis for it as I continue to learn more about the cultural context of various passages, epistles, books, etc.

I'm also not really convinced that "gender" is really a thing outside of social constructs. Biological sex, yes, but how do we really define what a gender is after removing those biological features that distinguish a male from a female? I've had a few conversations with transvestite acquaintances to try to figure out what makes them feel "male" or "female" since it's something that they seem to think about a lot more than others of us, but still can't claim to understand what a gender really is outside of the biological or what we have been trained to do within our cultures based on what physical biological parts we were born with.

Personally, I'd be the same person no matter what form of physical body I was wearing, though I might be more persecuted or more privileged in my culture based on my biological sex or race.

When complementing a spouse, it is indeed more useful to base it on the two individuals involved as you mentioned in your OP. Assuming that one can throw any random male and female together and think they automatically complement each other in anything seems a bit silly at best.

I'm just really opposed to the "all men should be like this" and "all women should be like that" because reasons (and maybe even cherry-pick out a bible verse to "prove" it) way of believing when it doesn't at all match reality. God doesn't require us to put on blinders.

 

[archer75]

The answer is that men and women are not that different. There seems to be very few traits that have a significant difference in terms of male and female, even though these traits may be expressed completely differently.

This part is a little unclear to me. If there's no real "difference," but the traits are expressed "completely" differently, then what is it that's so similar? An abstraction that can never be observed?

 

[mkgal1]

This tells me that there is a genuine gender characteristic that transcends any role that nurture of circumstance, culture or individuality has to play.

.....or merely a HUMAN characteristic.

Something that people that work in palliative care can tell you, when most people are faced with their own mortality, they typically sum up their life's priorities as how well they were loved and how well they loved others (sounds sort of like how Jesus summed up the importance of the commandments....right?).

 

[Anguspure]

.....or merely a HUMAN characteristic.

Something that people that work in palliative care can tell you, when most people are faced with their own mortality, they typically sum up their life's priorities as how well they were loved and how well they loved others (sounds sort of like how Jesus summed up the importance of the commandments....right?).

"Yes and" rather than "no but".

 

[SnowyMacie]

This part is a little unclear to me. If there's no real "difference," but the traits are expressed "completely" differently, then what is it that's so similar? An abstraction that can never be observed?

Here's an example: Leadership. People will say that men are more naturally leaders than women, however men and women are both just as capable of leading, but the way a men lead tends to be different than how women lead.

 

[archer75]

Here's an example: Leadership. People will say that men are more naturally leaders than women, however men and women are both just as capable of leading, but the way a men lead tends to be different than how women lead.

I don't mean to nitpick, but couldn't those be different skill sets that can be interpreted as leadership?

 

[Paidiske]

However, men and women react differently at home and at work because they are different. Stress is created in a marriage when a woman involuntary works (or works more than she wants to) outside the home. Likewise, stress can occur for a man who is unable to work (or works less than he wants to) outside the home.

Well, honestly, stress is created whenever anyone is in a particular situation involuntarily. When I was working less than I wanted to, that was just as stressful for me as for any man. (And many men are greatly stressed by working more than they want to!)

If I see any difference I think I can generalise between the way men and women react differently, I think it would be that, on the whole, women pay more attention to how people feel. This can be helpful or unhelpful depending on the situation and what you do with what you notice about how people feel, but in talking to men I consistently notice that they just don't seem to pay as much attention to that aspect of what's happening around them as women do.

I'm quite prepared to think that that's due to social conditioning, though!

I definitely have a problem with the "All women should be X" and "All men should be Y" thing. All people should be the unique person God has created, gifted and called them to be, whether that conforms to our cultural expectations or not!

 

[HereIStand]

Well, honestly, stress is created whenever anyone is in a particular situation involuntarily. When I was working less than I wanted to, that was just as stressful for me as for any man. (And many men are greatly stressed by working more than they want to!)

If I see any difference I think I can generalise between the way men and women react differently, I think it would be that, on the whole, women pay more attention to how people feel. This can be helpful or unhelpful depending on the situation and what you do with what you notice about how people feel, but in talking to men I consistently notice that they just don't seem to pay as much attention to that aspect of what's happening around them as women do.

I'm quite prepared to think that that's due to social conditioning, though!

I definitely have a problem with the "All women should be X" and "All men should be Y" thing. All people should be the unique person God has created, gifted and called them to be, whether that conforms to our cultural expectations or not!

The book noted earlier is more nuanced than I can do justice to in a brief post. Suffice to say though, secular culture confounds gender with sex, and makes both cultural with no reference to God or creation. This creates bizarre situations of boys wanting to compete on high school girls sports teams or grown men wanting to change in women's public swimming pool locker rooms.

Even more seriously, standards of physical strength have been lowered for fireman or military personnel to allow women to qualify. This creates situations where women don't have the upper body strength to carry a ladder or do pull ups. Blind loyalty to gender-neutrality is bad for women and men.

 

[Paidiske]

Let's not go off-topic to medical conditions such as gender dysphoria; that's not really what this thread is about.

I agree that someone who does a job needs to be able to do a job. What I've found in reality, though, is that often people's perceptions of ability are very different to the reality. For example, at one point I took on a job where I was the first woman ever employed in that role for that organisation. Because it was a role where we often had to deal with "difficult" people, and physical assault was not uncommon, people assumed that because I am a woman - and not a particularly physically impressive one - that I was unfit for the role.

In fact, over the time I worked there, I was just as successful in dealing with the "difficult" people as my male colleagues (if not more so, at times). My approach might have been different, relying less on physical intimidation and more on empathy and building rapport, but it's significant that while I was threatened, I was never hit; which is more than most of my colleagues could say!

So while there might be very few roles which rely on brute strength that most women can't meet, for a lot of roles I think we probably just need to be open to people bringing their own strengths to bear and being effective in their own way.

 

[bekkilyn]

The book noted earlier is more nuanced than I can do justice to in a brief post. Suffice to say though, secular culture confounds gender with sex, and makes both cultural with no reference to God or creation. This creates bizarre situations of boys wanting to compete on high school girls sports teams or grown men wanting to change in women's public swimming pool locker rooms.

Even more seriously, standards of physical strength have been lowered for fireman or military personnel to allow women to qualify. This creates situations where women don't have the upper body strength to carry a ladder or do pull ups. Blind loyalty to gender-neutrality is bad for women and men.

Most activities don't need to be based on gender or biological sex though. The problem we have is when the requirement to be a firefighter is "be a man" rather than asking if the individual seeking the position can carry the ladder or a person to safety under various circumstances. There are a lot of men who couldn't qualify, but also women who could qualify, so it would be best to base it on individual skillset or capability than on whether the person is male or female.

As far as transgender issues go, they can be very complex, so a brief post definitely wouldn't do justice.

 

[HereIStand]

Let's not go off-topic to medical conditions such as gender dysphoria; that's not really what this thread is about.

I agree that someone who does a job needs to be able to do a job. What I've found in reality, though, is that often people's perceptions of ability are very different to the reality. For example, at one point I took on a job where I was the first woman ever employed in that role for that organisation. Because it was a role where we often had to deal with "difficult" people, and physical assault was not uncommon, people assumed that because I am a woman - and not a particularly phoysically impressive one - that I was unfit for the role.

In fact, over the time I worked there, I was just as successful in dealing with the "difficult" people as my male colleagues (if not more so, at times). My approach might have been different, relying less on physical intimidation and more on empathy and building rapport, but it's significant that while I was threatened, I was never hit; which is more than most of my colleagues could say!

So while there might be very few roles which rely on brute strength that most women can't meet, for a lot of roles I think we probably just need to be open to people bringing their own strengths to bear and being effective in their own way.

If gender is purely cultural, then we can choose any gender role we want. The problem is with society, not the individual. I don't believe this, but that's the scary logic of this ideology.

Your job situation fits with an example in the book. It notes that women can be better than men in certain aspects of police work, because women can deescalate a situation that men would turn violent.

 

[Paidiske]

If gender is purely cultural, then we can choose any gender role we want. The problem is with society, not the individual. I don't believe this, but that's the scary logic of this ideology.

Well, short of roles which involve our (primary or secondary) sexual characteristics, why can't we adapt our roles to suit our strengths? What role do you think is inalienably belonging solely to men or women?

 

[HereIStand]

Most activities don't need to be based on gender or biological sex though. The problem we have is when the requirement to be a firefighter is "be a man" rather than asking if the individual seeking the position can carry the ladder or a person to safety under various circumstances. There are a lot of men who couldn't qualify, but also women who could qualify, so it would be best to base it on individual skillset or capability than on whether the person is male or female.

As far as transgender issues go, they can be very complex, so a brief post definitely wouldn't do justice.

Carrying the ladder is a test that's part of the qualifying for the job. Yes, there are men out there who couldn't do it and women who could. But some of the women applying for the job, can't perform the task. Yet, the public is forced to go along with the insanity of hiring them, or cities risk lawsuits.

 

[HereIStand]

Well, short of roles which involve our (primary or secondary) sexual characteristics, why can't we adapt our roles to suit our strengths? What role do you think is inalienably belonging solely to men or women?

It's not an issue of roles inalienably belonging to men or women. Failure to acknowledge that men and women are better at certain things because they are men or women puts society at a huge disadvantage.

 

[Paidiske]

I disagree. From my point of view, failure to acknowledge that different men are better at certain things, and different women are better at certain things, and allowing men and women each to do what they're better at regardless of whether it stereotypically corresponds to their gender, puts both individuals and society at large at a huge disadvantage.

Pigeonholing people into roles for which they are poorly suited, on the basis of gender, serves nobody.

 

[SnowyMacie]

The book noted earlier is more nuanced than I can do justice to in a brief post. Suffice to say though, secular culture confounds gender with sex, and makes both cultural with no reference to God or creation. This creates bizarre situations of boys wanting to compete on high school girls sports teams or grown men wanting to change in women's public swimming pool locker rooms.

Even more seriously, standards of physical strength have been lowered for fireman or military personnel to allow women to qualify. This creates situations where women don't have the upper body strength to carry a ladder or do pull ups. Blind loyalty to gender-neutrality is bad for women and men.

Gender is an issue where both ends of the spectrum are both partially right and partially wrong. Sex and gender, while often used interchangeably in common speech, are not exactly the same thing in the realms of biology and psychology. Sex is your physical anatomy, and it's either male, female, or intersex. Gender, which I already explained in the OP, is your social roles based on your sex (role), psychological traits, your personal identification of one's own gender based on an internal awareness (identity), and how you express these psychological traits (expression). In the vast majority of people, these two things align, but for a small group of people, they do not, and when that occurs, it is called Gender Dysphoria. Now, this actually is only a very, very small percentage of the population (0.01% of males and 0.0025% of females), but in recent years has sort of become trendy to be this way. I often say that it's become "like gluten intolerance, it's become trendy to pretend you have an issue, but on the other hand, some people actually have one." The people who do have one are usually not the ones going around about 76 genders and all of that Tumberlina nonsense.

That's where those people get it wrong, they fail to account for individual differences and think those differences are an entirely different expression itself and therefore gender. These concepts we have for our genders in our society are actually fairly broad and can encompass many different personalities and variations of interests. In other words, they're not talking about differences in gender, but differences in personality and interests within gender, and trying to make every distinction possible to be its own independent gender. That's why almost every one of those gender expressions (bigender, gender fluid, pangender, etc.) is not recognized by any major psychological organization like the APA or NIMH, or even the WHO.

Now, that does not mean there is only two ways that gender can vary or that there's only two genders. There are cultures that have been and that still exist today with more than two genders, and it's always been that way, and in every society there is evidence that there are some people who do not identify with with some or all of the of the aspects of the gender assigned to their biological sex. People who do not fit into their society's aspects of gender exists everywhere and have existed throughout time.

That's why gender is less of a binary dichotomy, but more of a cluster of various psychological traits that culture says "that's this", especially considering that psychology is showing that men and women are really not that psychologically different when you take cultural differences away. It seems to be less of an issue of being some kind of different gender, but just have different traits that's different than the majority of men or women. Yes, it's true that there's not all of these different genders and all, but it's also true that just because you are not like most men or women doesn't mean you are an entirely different gender.

 

[Dave-W]

Likewise, stress can occur for a man who is unable to work (or works less than he wants to) outside the home.

That sounds ENTIRELY cultural.