Historical Roles of
Men and Woman

The historical roles of men and woman in relationships were rigid and well defined. This provided both many advantages and disadvantages to both sexes, but supported the societal goals of marriage very well.

The Traditional Relationship Model - can be summarized as strictly structured and gender rigid. The role of husband was the "King of the Castle", an independent decision maker who protected and provided for his family. The wife was the devoted "Queen". She was financially dependant upon her husband and subordinate to his decisions. Her mission was to make him happy, care for his children and administer the home.

In a less civilized society, the regiment provided by patriarchal social control may have been a necessary evil in the social evolution of human-kind. However, as technology, education and freedoms have changed our world, society and many of its "belief institutions" remain in the "Dark Ages" of relationship theory.

To better understand the confusion surrounding the newly emerging roles of men and woman in relationships, we must first explore the historical advantages, and the newly emerging disadvantages of the Traditional Relationship Model.

The Advantages of the Traditional Model

The illusion of the Traditional Relationship Model is that of stability. Indeed, while divorces were low, that was more a result of rigidity and oppression, rather than free choice. However, there are clear advantages, many of which are superficial, but in many respects quite legitimate methods to achieve the social objectives of marriage.

1. Well defined Roles - Men and women knew from childhood, exactly what their role would be. Without questioning if such roles are preferable, fair or pleasant, they were without question, clearly and rigidly defined.
   1. Mens' Roles - The men were to be the bread winners, providers for the family, protectors of their wife and children, the leader, the decision maker, the "King of the Castle", where "being a man" means being independent, self-sufficient and strong.
   2. Womens' Roles - The women were the deferring servant to their husband. Whose "duties" included execution of the work tasks for a household, bearing and raising children, serving the sexual needs and physical needs of the husband, obeying without question the commands of her husband. She was totally dependent upon her husband economically: prohibited from owning property or being employed. She had no right or place to give her "opinion" about anything and had no acknowledged input in any decisions, even child bearing. She was expected to "keep her place".

    

2. Clear Expectations and Responsibility - The rigidity of role definitions benefited each with certainty of expectations and a clear delineation of responsibility. As would be expected, the behavior of people in a society is taught and enforced through its major institutions. Civil and criminal laws, societal pressure and religion teachings were fashioned to support, clarify and continue these rigid roles and the underlying patriarchial society within which they existed.
   1. Legal Institutionalization - Clear expectations and responsibility, were institutionalized through criminal and civil laws. There was no question about what was expected from either a man or woman in their roles as husband and wife.

      When a woman was married to a man, she was certain that as long as she was not guilty of adultery, she and her children would be financially provided for, for the rest of her life. Criminal laws for a Husband's failure to support his wife and family still exist today in many jurisdictions.

      To assure performance of their marital obligations, legal divorce was extremely difficult. At certain points in history, death was the only way to end marriage. It certainly helps keep the divorcer rate low when divorce is not allowed. Over time, civil divorce emerged, but the legal basis for a cause of action in divorce was limited to fundamental violations of the societal contract between husband and wife: incapacity, fraud or infidelity of the wife.

      If the wife was underage or otherwise not qualified to marry, a husband could divorce. Or, if she was found guilty of adultery, criminalized in many states, the husband could divorce and she would typically lose not only all financial support, but custody of the children as well, in what today would be the equivalent of a termination of parental rights.

      Women could not sue, nor vote, nor was their opinion of consequence to society. Since the male dominated society viewed only the husband's obligation of support to be the sole consideration.

      As time passed and wives were allowed to sure for divorce for extreme acts of physical cruelty, there was still little that changed for the husband as he would still be obligated to support her when he was at fault.

      There was no real reciprocal burden of consequence for infidelity by the Husband. All that he loses is her servitude, while his responsibility for support continued. On the other hand, if the husband was wealthy and the "tasks" of servitude were performed by actual servants, rather than the wife, there was a great incentive for the wife to overlook her husband's infidelity.

      Over time, civil divorces provided additional grounds for divorce for each party such as Adultery, Abandonment, Failure to Support and Extreme Physical Cruelty. Each of which is clearly a derivative of a breach of the traditional social contract between husband and wife. They were gradually expanded upon with causes of action for incarceration (a derivative of abandonment), deviant sexual conduct (a derivative of cruelty), and other grounds.

      Trivia: New Jersey was a leading reform state with the introduction of "18-month separation". However, being on the cutting edge of change, its laws still require a "Cause of Action" or proof of statutory grounds, even with the so-called "No Fault" ground of "18 month separation". Other states that were slower in their change if divorce laws allow divorce by consent, without grounds, with no waiting period or with no "cause" being required.

      Clearly the husband benefited greatly in the Traditional Relationship Model and are reluctant to abandon their role as "King". In addition, even today, many older matrimonial judges still assume the gender based traditional obligation that the "husband shall support" the divorcing wife, regardless of fault or financial ability. Thus there is little wonder why men live the traditional role and exhibit the entitlement mentality, for beside there being little personal advantage for a man being "de-throned", it is the common misconception by many men and women that:

      " Husbands are obligated to support their wives and children by virtue of their gender as males."

   2. Social and Religious Support - The traditional roles were accepted and encouraged within society in general, and women realistically had few viable financial alternatives for self support. The majority of religious view points, reinforced strict adherence to these traditional roles.

      Historically, one may observe that religious teachings change over time as the interpretation of religious principles adjusts to the accepted norm of society at the time. As a vehicle to teach the particular dogma of that sect, organized religions are extremely resistant to change and well suited to teach and enforce rigid duties and responsibilities. It becomes self-evident that as the demands of society change, either the religious sect adjusts, loses membership or another sect that better responds to its community forms and absorbs its membership.

      It should not be surprising that with today's widespread acceptance that change is inevitable, and religions in general being rigid and unadaptable, it is little wonder that many sects that continue to recite the Traditional Relationship Roles of men and woman have lost membership.

3. Long Term Stability - As a result of the lack of choices or options, the rigidity of roles, the clarity or responsibility and expectations, together with the reinforcement of the Traditional Model socially, religiously and legally, marriages were very stable. Few people ever got divorced. The vast majority of children were raised by both parents.

   There is no doubt however, that education of women, advances in technology, the need to increase production for world wars, and civil rights awareness all contributed to changes in society that provided fertile soil for the seeds of freedom and choice for women.

   These changes highlighted the disadvantages of the Traditional Model, and no one believed or correlated, the change in Traditional Roles, with the increase in divorce and broken families.

The Disadvantages of the Traditional Model

In general the rigidity of the Traditional Model resulted in marital stability by virtue of oppression. In addition, there are many other societal and personal disadvantages to the Traditional Model.

1. Lower Gross Domestic Product - Without a degree in economics, it is clear that the Traditional Model eliminated half of the population from the workforce. This was keenly recognized during World War II, where the shortage of "Man Power" required women to enter the work force to keep the war production continuing in full gear. As women enter the workplace, the nations' Gross Domestic Product increases because there are more people working.
2. Lower Economic Productivity - The economic measure of output is in paid services. By excluding women from the paid workforce two levels of production are affected:
   1. Efficient allocation of worker resources - The more workers, the better able the market place can allocate them to their maximum level of contribution
   2. Personal Productivity - While not demeaning the important contribution that men or women make to the unpaid jobs in the home, those jobs can be more efficiently completed with devices. Using the traditional labor-intensive model, women were greatly under-employed and there was no economic incentive to invest capital in labor saving devices. When women's labor was valued outside the home, an incentive to invest in labor saving devices arose together with a more efficient and full level of employment.
3. Less Cumulative Personal Wealth - With one earner, families had less cumulative income. Greater incomes lead to greater consumption and faster and more stable economic growth.
4. Lower Overall Level of Education - There is a built in disincentive to educating women as lack of education severely restricts their ability to challenge the status quo of the traditional model. Consequently, the traditional model encouraged lower overall education levels by providing little or no education to half the population.
5. Less Creativity for Society - Half the population does not significantly contribute to the creativity of the society. The rigid roles of the Traditional Model prevented women from competing creatively in any area that could provide money, power or prestige.
6. Less Individual Happiness - Happiness in marriage or the relationship was never considered a relevant factor. Consequently, while marriages were stable and long term, very few were happy or enjoyable.
   1. Stability Via Oppression - The systemic oppression of women, and the rigidity of each parties roles, allows little alternative expression. This results in: violence, lack of communication, anger and the resultant dysfunctions that are embedded upon children reared in an unhappy two parent household.
   2. Dysfunctional Stability - Marital stability is less important than the harmony of the relationship between parents. It is now well recognized that children are better off raised by one parent in a happy environment, than by two that are, fighting and angry with each other, in a dysfunctional marriage.
7. Less Personal Freedom - The Traditional Model has little latitude to allow choice. The strength of the Traditional Model is squarely rooted in its rigidity and the absence of choice, variation or deviation. The Traditional Model is by definition, the absence of choice. The Freedom to make the choices about our lives is the single largest condition for happiness. There is little wonder why most people in the traditional model were unhappy, and learned to "grin and bear it".
8. Less Responsibility for Individual Choices Made - The upshot of personal freedom is personal responsibility. The Traditional Model, by eliminating freedom, creates a society of Helpless Victims. There is no responsibility, when there are no choices or options. This has resulted in a society where people are unable and indignantly unwilling to make the personal changes that responsibility demands. Being less personally responsible means people are less able to adapt to the inevitable changes that occur in long-term relationships.

Freedoms and the Focus on Self:
Why the Traditional Model Must Fail

While many factors account for the change, the Technology Multiplier's Effect on birth control made feasible the freedom for women to control their own pregnancies and became the foundation for the women's movement in the 1970's. As that occurred, their ability to participate in the economy of society increased dramatically, as did their economic significance and economic "voting power".

For the first time in history, both men and women were empowered with true individual freedom:

• Economic opportunities - for women allow them to become independent;
• Birth control - empower women to control and plan child birth;
• Social changes - have removed the stigma of divorce and permitted men to assume traditional women's roles in the home;
• Legal changes - in divorce laws have made divorce easier to obtain and protect them from abuse and financial abandonment;
• Spiritual and religious recognition - of these changes have started to bring many worshippers back into their places or worship.

All of the Disadvantages of the Traditional Model are the Advantages that created the Transitional Relationship Model.

However, the ad hoc nature of the Transitional Model means that there are no institutionalized methods taught to men or women to address the inevitable relational stress caused by an ever changing world. It is little wonder then, that this stress can only be released through higher divorce rates.

The Transitional Model: Everyone is Confused

While it is true that during this transitional period, the Disadvantages of the Traditional Model are the Advantages of the Transitional Model, everyone is still confused.

The dilemma that faces all of us is the lack of a clear picture of what the New Relationship Model should be. It cannot be legislated, dictated or decreed. It can only arise from a consensus over time as a result of common painful experiences that will counter the sub-conscious or intuitive belief in the Traditional Model.

We collectively muddle through the Transitional Relationship Model.

It can be summarized as:

"A period of societal confusion caused by the pain of transition from the Traditional Relationship Model that we all suffer through at an individual level."

The rising and falling of our satisfaction in our relationships, the high divorce rate, dating and fear of commitment, and re-marriage upon re-marriage, are manifestations of this collective pain.

In part, the purpose for this site and the workshops that we offer are to enlighten people to this phenomenon and empower them with methods to make their adaptation less painful.

The Transitional Model has resulted in two major flaws that both contribute to the high divorce rate, discussed in detail under Adaptability:

1. Not Knowing What to Do: A Rigid Model in an Ever Changing World - Since people do not know what to do or how to act, they naturally rely upon the clear and rigid roles of the Traditional Relationship Model as guidance for their relationship behavior. In an ever changing world, the consequence has been:
   1. Entitlement Mentality- Men's contribution to the high divorce rate is primarily the result of following the life script of their traditional role and believing they are entitled not to get divorced. In other words, men simply follow the traditional role script of being a monogamous, bread-winner. They then feel they have done "their duty" and do not need to address "her" issues about "emotional connection" and "feelings". As discussed in the cavemen and cavewomen sections, this results in an unsatisfying relationship for both parties, and since "All Change if For The Worse" it will result in divorce upon significant Bad Changes.
   2. The Love Dilemma - Women's contribution to the high divorce rate is primarily because they tend to fall prey to the Love Dilemma. We romanticize the traditional roles to our children, and subsequently as adults we still continue to fall back on them under stress or when we are uncertain able the correct course to choose. Women in particular, tend to adhere to the goals and roles of the Traditional Model when evaluating the Equity of the relationship and fall prey to the Potential Equity Trap. This occurs both at the inception and development of the relationship, and when faced with a non-communicative or emotionally detached mate.
2. Not Doing What is Right: Failure to Assume Personal Responsibility - Both men and women equally share responsibility for relationship failure as both sexes do not assume responsibility for the Bad Changes they cause. The resulting change in the equilibrium of the relationship and the Relational Positioning^TM of the parties to each other in the relationship, together with the lack of knowledge and skill to maintain Structured Equilibrium^TM ultimately results in dissolution of the relationship and divorce.

Avoiding the Pain of Transition

The only way to avoid the pain of transition, is to:

Reject both the Traditional and Transitional Relationship Models

Unfortunately, most people will not be able to avoid the pain of the Transitional Relationship Model because they will refuse to accept that:

The Traditional Relationship Model is doomed to failure.

Also, because the Traditional Model is embedded in the exisiting institutions, people, especially at times of relationship stress, cannot bear to be without some guidance as to proper behaviorial responses.

We have created a series of workshops to help individuals or couples understand and embrace a relationship model that clarifies their roles, teaches you what to do, how to do it, and how to adapt to the stress of change and remain fullfilled and happy in a relationship.

We also provide nominally priced workbooks and other materials for self-help. These materials may help you improve yourself and your relationship and provide insightful guides for your behavior.

To further clarify and formally define your relationship and the level of commiment to the marriage, as we provide legal and family mediation services. These services may play a vital part in defining or mediating what your relationship is, help mediate conflict for reconciliation, or provide a non-confrontational pathway to divorce.