How Evolved Is Your Relationship?
Defining a new paradigm for relationships.
It's time to change the paradigm of romantic relationships. We are moving toward what has been called the "Third Stage" in relationships, and I say it's about time, and an idea long overdue.
The first stage in relationships is that of dependence, and often co-dependence. In these relationships, one partner (typically the man, or the more masculine partner) is clearly superior and directs the relationship. This type of relationship relies on dominance and submission, which can often lead to abuse. It's an immature type of relationship and is quite unbalanced. It worked well in pre-feminist America, and continues to work for women (and occasionally men) who want to be taken care of their whole life and don't mind putting up with inconveniences to feel the sense of safety they experience.
The second stage is that of independence. The women's rights movement ushered in the second stage in relationships, which balanced the scales in the relationship. The second stage is all about give and take, "you make dinner and I'll do the dishes", everyone getting what's fair. The problem with this stage is that someone is always keeping score, and life isn't always fair. The second stage of a relationship takes a merchant's view of love. Love is seen as a transaction, with something gained and something lost in each exchange. This is, imho, a huge improvement from the first stage, but it left me feeling pretty empty. In this transaction based relationship, we always seem to be trying to change our partner, making suggestions for improvement that of course would help them be happier, in our opinion, but trying to change another is a fool's game.
The third stage of romantic relationships is one of interdependence. It's been called "spiritual partnership" and "conscious union", among other names. The third stage is about what I call "both, and". In this stage, we return to love for love's sake. We stop keeping score, and we understand that "equal" does not mean "the same as". We begin to understand that in order to be authentically engaged in a romantic relationship, we first must be authentically ourselves. We have to be willing to look deeply into the mirror and embrace ALL of who we are. This third stage of a romantic relationship is a coming out of sorts. We have to stop hiding who we really are and embrace the paradox: In my case, a couple of years ago I was confronted with "I am a strong, independent woman who is terrified that the love of my life will abandon me (so I'll leave him first)." I had to embrace that I was both a strong independent woman and someone terrified that love would abandon me. The second created the first. To deny the second would be to negate the first. They existed together both enriching my life and making me feel like a neurotic wreck, until I could come to the place in the middle, honoring both and still find ways to be happy.
Discussion
Wait a minute! I'm an at-home mom. We are NOT in dependent, co-dependent relationships with our husbands. Our husbands do NOT direct the relationship and they are NOT superior to us.
People have way too many stereotypes about at-home moms based on June Cleaver or Ozzie and Harriet. It's not the 1950's. June Cleaver was never a real person. The at-home moms I know today expect to be equal to our husbands. We make decisions. We manage the money. We do non-traditional things around the house. We expect our husbands to do child care and housework when they come home because we have been working all day, too.
When I first read the article, I took it for granted that it was just about power relationships. People in the 1950's really did expect men to be the boss and some people still think that way. I have never been in a relationship like that, not even partially. Staying home is about what work you do, not who is in charge.
Good for you BookMama! You know, there's a whole range of possibilities in relationships, and whether you're at home or not is only one small gauge. Technically, I'm an at-home mom too. I work from my home, and as a life coach, I don't do the 9-5 40 hour work week. I'm nearly always home to pick up my child, and I'm definitely the primary care-giver.
Sadly, I think you're in the minority. Scanning all my at-home mom friends, only one is truly not in a dependent relationship with her partner. And let me say again, that a stage one relationship is perfect for some people, as long as it's not abusive. There are many couples in this type of 1950's traditional relationship and it works well for them. There are also couples where both people work outside the home who are in stage one relationships.
I actually think it's nearly irrelevant where you do your work. What's more relevant is how healthy your self-image is, how independent you are, and whether or not you're willing to do the tough work of bringing deep love and a conscious commitment to your relationship.
The article is about power, but it's about developing an internal reference to power rather than our society's typical view of power, where someone has to win. With this self-referential power, everybody wins. :-)
I'm not sure how you define "in a dependent relationship," but I've spent a lot of time over the past few years talking to at-home moms about their lives. Their husbands are not making decisions for them, they don't ask permission to spend money, etc. They don't look anything like the "stage one" relationship of dominance and submission that you describe. If anything, they could be described as having reached the third stage of interdependence because they aren't keeping score and they understand that equal doesn't mean the same as, they're just doing things because they love each other and their kids.
I have been amazed over the years talking to wage-earning moms and hearing how little their husbands do around the house. In fact, one time-study found that the husbands of at-home moms did more with their kids than guys whose wives work full time outside the home! I suspect this is because at-home moms pass over the kids and run for the hills when hubby comes home. :-)
I also suspect that many families with traditional ideas about who should be the boss now expect that women will earn money. You can't just look at whose doing what and think you know what's going on, especially since men now sometimes pressure their wives to earn money. I have found that what your and your partner believe about how relationships should work is the most important factor in the end. As you said, I think where you work is much less relevant than most people believe.
I think to the one who stays home - stage one - takes care of the kids, home, spouse, gets so tied up in all of it they forget themselves. Everyone and everyone else's needs are more important. By giving fully and sacrificing themselves is how devoted love is shown. That 10 minutes of "me" time is just not always possible, so in consequence loving of one's self actually becomes lowest on the totem pole. Too busy teaching the others how to love themselves......take care of the others. When the family evolves and the kids move away, or the youngest no longer needs 24/7, I think the home parent finally looks in the mirror and says "Hey what about me?" The point is, if you did not take the "me" time before, and make all others understand that it is okay; then by the time they get to a point or age where you can finally do for self it is the others who allow or can't allow you this place. They seem to fight to stay in phase one while your ready to move on to the next phase. I see a lot of marriages and families in this rut. I also see a lot of parents or home spouses who leave and separate in order to get what they need in life, their turn. Sometimes, to reach stage three the others have to let go of stage one. They can make your life a living hell because of all the energy expended fighting to get to the next stage....so we love, give in, and stay in stage one.(Did this make since?)
You've asked a great question Savannah. And although I have a personal bias for the third stage, the first and second stages are absolutely perfect for different people.
To answer your question, it's your choice. There are hundreds of thousands of couples living happily in the first stage. That would be like a traditional marriage where the mom stays at home and does the tough work of keeping the kids, the house and hubby clean and happy. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as everyone's happy.
There are also plenty of couples who skip over the first stage and go straight to the second stage. Again, nothing wrong with it, as long as everyone's happy.
The most common scenario are couples who are stage one in some aspects and stage two in others, or stage two in some and stage three in others. I have yet to find a couple who's genuinely, completely in the third stage. It's really hard work!!! AND, sometimes it's nice to ask for a trade-off (you cook, I'll clean up). Technically that's stage two, but there's nothing wrong with it.
Hopefully, this helps you (and everyone else who just didn't ask the question) understand more.
It's so hard to completely reach the third stage, BookMama. It takes a highly conscious, committed couple to do so. And it's really unusual for both partners to be in the same place at the same time.
It's kind of like balancing. You're never really, fully THERE. You're always moving, ever so slightly, to maintain it. Consciousness: it's like riding a unicycle or balancing on one foot with your eyes closed-- LOL.
