gender roles in marriage essay

How Do Gender Roles Impact Marriage?

A look at traditional versus modern roles..

Posted January 7, 2020 | Reviewed by Jessica Schrader

• Making Marriage Work
• Find a marriage therapist near me

If we judge by divorce rates, marriage was easier years ago. At least that’s how things looked on the surface. Divorce in those days wasn’t socially acceptable, and so couples stayed married regardless of whether or not they should. We’re sure there was a good deal of silent suffering for those whose marriages were unhappy.

There are lots of reasons why marriages can fail today, and one has to do with how gender roles have changed. Historically, men typically "wore the pants," or at least that’s what men believed. Their opinions on most things relating to the home and family were very often decisive. Both men and women outwardly seemed to accept this arrangement, although no one should believe that many women were happy about it. As one positive, couples had fewer reasons to argue because they both, or more accurately, women, knew their "place."

Thankfully, the world is different now. Although we’re far from done, social movements have allowed women to achieve a greater level of equality. However, not all marriages have partners who are on equal footing, and in some cases, that’s by choice. Couples generally fall into one of two camps: partners either lean towards the traditional perspective of male breadwinner/female homemaker, or hold the more contemporary view that men and women are equal and have shared responsibilities.

While this post refers to husbands and wives, gender roles can also apply to same-sex couples. For example, it's not uncommon to find a same- sex relationship where a more masculine partner takes on a breadwinning role and a more feminine partner within the marriage takes on a homemaker role. However, many contemporary same-sex couples will prefer a partnership with shared responsibilities as well.

Whether partners hold onto traditional or egalitarian roles really doesn’t matter much, or at least not as much as that they hold the same perspectives on the roles of husbands and wives. However, when one partner holds one perspective and the other partner the opposite one, they can have a hard time as they progress into their marriage.

In the case of traditional marriages, both husbands and wives are comfortable with the idea that the husband is dominant. They have a set of expectations about how each partner should behave and they find their respective roles to be natural and even preferred. While they might admit to themselves that their relationship is many ways imbalanced, they are willing to live with things as they are because that’s how they see the way of the world. We should point out that these relationships are acceptable only if the husband is dominant. Neither partner likes the arrangement when the wife is dominant, possibly because this represents too extreme a departure from traditional male and female roles.

However, the reality is couples who hold onto traditional gender roles are not as satisfied with their marriages as those who accept more contemporary roles. Modern thinking couples are sometimes referred to as androgynous, because the two partners share a number of personal traits. Both husbands and wives possess some degree of what might be considered masculine traits, such as means-ends problem solving, and feminine traits, such as emotional expressiveness.

Androgynous couples do better because they can identify with each other. When two people have similar ways of thinking, they have an easier time communicating because they understand each other. In contrast, those who are more traditional might have difficulty at times seeing their partner’s side of issues. When conflicts arise, they are not as well equipped to handle them because they see the world primarily from the perspective of their different gender roles.

Modern thinking couples can also have their difficulties, but their problems tend to be different than those of traditional thinking couples. Women who expect equality and reject traditional gender roles won’t sacrifice their personal happiness to save their marriage out of respect for the institution. They are particularly vigilant of their relationship and will watch carefully how much their husbands contribute to home maintenance, how involved they are with their children, how committed they are to their marriage, and so on. When things are unfair and out of balance, they will react strongly.

With equality, there are more opportunities for conflicts. Because both partners believe they should have a say in all decisions, couples are forced to do more negotiating and compromising, and that increases the chances of fighting. Furthermore, as each partner works hard to safeguard their equality, any social exchange imbalances become more of a point of contention. A wife who thinks she’s working harder than she should around the house and a husband who thinks his wife doesn’t respect him, are more likely to confront their partner about these issues. This doesn’t necessarily mean couples are less happy today, but anything that increases the chances of conflict puts a marriage at risk.

While the edge goes to modern thinkers, both traditional and modern couples can still be happy. As we said, what’s most important is that their perspectives are in harmony. Where relationships can get particularly tricky is when they’re mismatched. It’s not hard to imagine that much bigger problems can arise when couples are mixed, especially if the husband is extremely traditional and the wife is not. Consider, for example, how such a couple would deal with housework. A traditional thinking husband would feel it is "women’s work," while his egalitarian thinking wife would demand that he do his share. In these marriages, partners have a very hard time understanding each other and there are a lot of opportunities for conflicts. Very often, their conflicts can’t be resolved because the two partners believe very different things. Ultimately, all the turbulence can weaken their commitment to the relationship.

Rob Pascale, Ph.D., is a research psychologist. Lou Primavera, Ph.D., is the dean of the School of Health Sciences at Touro Colleges. They are the authors of Making Marriage Work .

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Understanding Gender Roles and Their Effect On Our Relationships

Sarah Fielding is a freelance writer covering a range of topics with a focus on mental health and women's issues.

Ivy Kwong, LMFT, is a psychotherapist specializing in relationships, love and intimacy, trauma and codependency, and AAPI mental health.  

While they ought to be outdated, there are certain molds that men and women are traditionally taught and pressured to fit into: A man is strong and takes financial care of the family, while a woman is nurturing and takes  emotional care  of everyone.

Men take out the trash, and women do the dishes. Men pay for dinner, and women take care of the children. Men make straightforward, unemotional decisions, and women fret and follow along.

These are but a few of the many gender roles that perpetuate in society, forcing people into small boxes and frustrating dynamics. These ideals of how a person should behave based on their gender can harm an individual’s mental health and relationships as a whole. 

“Gender roles can have a significant impact on our relationships by creating power imbalances and limiting our ability to express ourselves authentically,” says Satadeepa Som , a psychologist and sexual wellness therapist at Allo Health , India’s first dedicated sexual health clinic. “When we internalize traditional gender roles, we may feel pressure to conform to certain expectations of how men and women should behave in relationships. This can lead to frustration, resentment, and a lack of intimacy.” 

Identifying, understanding, and challenging gender roles aids in dismantling their power and removing their limitations from existing and future relationships. To that end, here’s what you need to know about gender roles, how they limit people, and the importance of breaking them down. 

What are gender roles?

“Gender roles are not biologically determined,” says Som. “Gender roles are socially constructed and can vary widely between different societies and cultures.”

At their core, gender roles are an arbitrary set of characteristics society believes each person should embody based on their gender. For men, this often means foregoing emotion in favor of a big wallet and a strong presence. Women are supposed to be subdued, emotional, and caring, with an underlying subservience to the men in their lives. 

Gender roles based in patriarchy, a system of social, legal, economic, political, and cultural practices that position men as the dominant social group, have been shaped and further emphasized in a myriad of places around the world.

Cultural beliefs throughout time have reinforced the part of men as the provider and women as the homemaker in spaces such as religious and educational institutions and in government bodies, says Som.

Societal norms have reflected the teachings of these establishments, with families, peers, and the media following “unwritten rules about what is considered acceptable behavior for men and women in a particular society or culture.” Everything, from television to magazines, has also helped curate how women and men “should” each act. 

Traditional ideology separates men’s and women’s tasks as they have historically been treated—men are the breadwinner, and women are the caregiver. An egalitarian stance, on the other hand, seeks to remove gender as any determination of who takes on what tasks. In the middle, where much of society, consciously or unconsciously lives, is something known as transitional ideology, the man is the breadwinner, but he also supports the woman in household tasks.  

How gender roles are limiting

Feminist movements throughout the 20th century fought for gender equality and women's rights. Feminists call attention to and address a number of issues affecting women and girls around the world and advocate ending sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression to achieve full gender equality in law and practice.

This resulted in significant and important changes.White women were granted the right to vote in 1920, Black women gained the right to vote in 1965, and women began wearing pants, getting graduate degrees, holding full-time jobs, and, overall, becoming more independent with greater freedom, choices, and opportunities.

Over the past two decades, activists have continued to push for an extinction of gender roles and a society in which people are defined by who they are, not the gender they are. Progress exists but is still slow, with many people inclined to default to and protect gender roles and keep people in small boxes. 

To this day, the ways in which gender roles can impact people are endless. Regardless of if a person thinks these stereotypes are helping them or making them look tough or caring, being forced into a box based on your gender is incredibly limiting and can cause a range of repercussions.

According to Rebecca Minor , LICSW, a gender specialist and part-time faculty at Boston University specializing in the intersection of gender and sexuality, three major areas where this is the case are job choices, emotional expression, and household responsibilities.

There are certainly many men who love finance and many women who want to be a teacher or an artist. But there are also lots of women who love math and men who want to instill lessons into young minds.

It’s not wrong for a person to want a job that falls within their traditional gender role, as long as they have the option to do any they please—and get paid equally for it. Without that opportunity, a person can get stuck in a job their entire life that is in no way related to their passions. 

Emotionally, men are told that they shouldn’t dare have any sensitive emotions, and if they do, they better bottle them up quickly. Women can be emotional and nurturing, but they’re not allowed to be strong or powerful. “These expectations can hinder individuals from expressing their emotions authentically, leading to emotional suppression and strained relationships,” says Minor. 

Regardless of if women work, household tasks and child caring are often left to them. If the man makes more money (which is not always the case and ignores the pay gap), why should they help out at home? If they do, some people still view it as demeaning or unusual. 

Gender roles can also have a tremendously negative impact on a person’s mental health. “Oppressive gender roles and stereotypes can have a negative impact on mental health by creating feelings of shame, self-doubt, and low self-esteem,” says Som. “When individuals are unable to meet society’s expectations of how they should behave based on their gender, they may feel isolated, misunderstood, and even punished.” As a result, individuals might develop a sense of failure, anxiety, stress, or depression. 

Breaking down gender norms for healthier relationships

Dating and relationships often prove to be the ultimate test for gender roles. They create this idea that there is a “right” and “wrong” way for each person to behave in a relationship when all that matters is their character and compatibility. “Traditional gender roles can also limit our ability to express ourselves authentically in relationships,” says Som.

Not only are gender roles in relationships archaic, but many people are not even in a monogamous, heterosexual relationship. “Gender roles can reinforce stereotypes and lead to discrimination and oppression,” says Som. “For example, LGBTQ+ individuals may face discrimination in relationships and society based on their gender identity or sexual orientation. This can create feelings of isolation and impact mental health.”

When we let go of these unnecessary ideas of how a person should act in a relationship, it creates space for a healthy, supportive relationship. “Breaking down gender roles allows individuals to communicate openly and honestly about their needs, desires, and emotions without fear of judgment or reprisal,” says Minor.

“This leads to more effective and empathetic communication, fostering greater understanding and connection between partners.” It also provides space for people to pursue their interests, work on power imbalances generated by society, and create an intimate, healthy space for the relationship to grow. 

Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2016). Gender role ideology. In A. Wong, M. Wickramasinghe, renee hoogland, & N. A. Naples (Eds.),  The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Gender and Sexuality Studies  (pp. 1–3). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118663219.wbegss205

The secret to a happy marriage: flexible roles

Lecturer in Communication Studies, Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Kalijaga

Director, Indonesian Consortium for Religious Studies

Disclosure statement

Alimatul Qibtiyah receives funding from Ford Foundation and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australia.

Siti Syamsiyatun reeceives funding from Ford Foundation.

View all partners

• Bahasa Indonesia

Between 2005 and 2010, one in ten married couples in Indonesia got divorced, according to data from the Supreme Court. In 70% of the cases, the wife initiated the divorce. The trend has only increased since then, rising by 80% between 2010 and 2015.

Why are women twice as likely as men to seek a divorce? One assumption is that the idea of gender equality as promoted through feminism drives this divorce rate. But it’s an assumption that’s not supported by the evidence.

Data from the Ministry of Religious Affairs , which administers marriages and divorces, identify at least three main reasons cited by those filing for divorce: marital disharmony, responsibility, and money problems. All three reasons relate to the flexibility of the respective roles of the wife and husband in a marriage.

Women’s multiple roles

The involvement of women in the economic workforce and public life has not been reciprocated by a shift among men into domestic work and reproductive life. As a result, women assume multiple responsibilities as daughters, wives, mothers, workers and members of society.

As a daughter, a woman is traditionally responsible for taking care of her parents. As a wife, she is expected to serve her husband, preparing food, clothing and other personal needs. As a mother, she has to take care of the children and their needs, including education.

As a worker, she has to be professional, disciplined and a good employee. And as a member of society, she is expected to participate in community activities and volunteer work, both within her community and through social organisations.

Read more: ‘It takes a village to raise a child’

By contrast, men have traditionally had just one role, as the family’s breadwinner, and little obligation to be socially active within their community.

Some cultures and families still maintain those gender roles today. It is understandable, therefore, that these multiple burdens of responsibility on women impose hardship on them and leave them vulnerable.

Flexible roles

Overcoming this inflexibility in women’s and men’s roles within marriage is therefore important.

Let’s first posit that, by the very definition of role flexibility, both men and women have equal responsibility for domestic and caretaker tasks within the family, on the basis of fair agreement and commitment. Doing the dishes, laundry, ironing, cooking, feeding the baby and so on are not solely the wife’s job, but also the responsibility of the husband. Equal doesn’t mean similar. So different families might apportion tasks in different ways to each member of the family.

The second idea is that both men and women have equal responsibilities to earn money and to participate actively within the community. An example of role flexibility here is when the couple decide to have a child and the woman becomes pregnant. In many cases, the pregnancy will mean she will contribute less toward the family income.

In another scenario, when the woman obtains a better-paying job than the man, it should not matter that she earns more than her husband. The most important point is that the decision is in the best interests of the whole family and doesn’t disproportionately burden one family member. A husband no longer has to earn more money than his wife or vice versa.

Flexible roles brings marital happiness

Empirical evidence supports the argument for greater role flexibility within the marital space.

In early 2018 we conducted a survey supported by the Ford Foundation of 106 married respondents in Yogyakarta. Some 54% said they were “very happy” in their family. Of those, nearly two-thirds described the gender role flexibility within their marriage as “high”.

By comparison, of the 45% who said they were merely “happy”, nearly three-fifths said the gender role flexibility in their marriage was only “moderate”.

The more flexible the roles of men and women in the family, the happier they are.

The findings are interesting, especially for policymakers and religious leaders, as well as the wider community. The idea of flexibility in marital roles is in line with the characteristics of the millennial generation: dynamic, non-fixed and non-rigid.

Implementing a flexible arrangement for men’s and women’s roles in the household can contribute to the happiness of the family members and help reduce the number of divorces. Nobody, after all, dreams of having a broken family.

• Relationships
• Marital happiness
• Gender roles

Events Officer

Lecturer (Hindi-Urdu)

Director, Defence and Security

Opportunities with the new CIEHF

School of Social Sciences – Public Policy and International Relations opportunities

• Marriage and Relationship Resources
• Become a Marriage and Relationship Educator
• Start a Marriage and Relationship Education Program
• Manage Your Marriage/Relationship Program
• Find a Local Marriage and Relationship Program
• Recursos en Español
• Testimonials
• Marriage Facts and Research
• Research & Policy
• Newsletters

Gender Roles and Marriage: A Fact Sheet

This fact sheet explores how gender roles and expectations impact couple interaction, family decision-making, and perspectives on marital satisfaction. Background information is provided on traditional gender roles and behaviors in the United States and attitudes of men and women toward gender roles. Trends revealing Americans are moving away from patriarchal marriages are discussed, as well as findings from studies that indicate more decision-making by women, the impact of gender role expectations on relationships, and differences in Hispanic and African American couples. Graphs compare husbands’ and wives’ mean scores on a scale of conservative gender attitudes in 1980 and 2000, and the percentage of housework performed by husbands in 1980 and 2000. 2 graphs and 13 references.

Absolute Gender Equality in a Marriage Essay

Of all traditions cherished in the society for centuries, marriage seems to be the least prone to any outwards influences. The smallest changes to the institute of marriage raise heated discussions immediately, and even the least noticeable alterations in the roles of a husband and a wife never resonate with the society well. As a result, the introduction of the principles of gender equality into the institute of marriage is often viewed as an attempt to destroy the latter. Despite the fact that the principles of gender equality in marriage will clearly affect not only the relationships between a husband and a wife but also the roles of the spouses considerably, it is bound to change the institute of marriage for the better because of the opportunities for more stable relationships based on mutual respect and a reasonable approach towards the conflict solving process by two completely independent people.

Gender equality is a crucial component of relationships between a husband and a wife since this model allows for each of the spouses to take their share of responsibilities and be flexible in their choice of family roles. There is no secret that the lack of equality presupposes that the dominant party makes all major decisions in the family, leaving the other spouse to enjoy their less significant status. As a result, the spouse, which has fewer responsibilities, becomes dependent on the other one, and the dynamic relationships based on mutual trust and cooperation turn into the pattern, in which the dominant spouse usurps the power and the submissive one adopts the role of a son or a daughter rather than a grown-up man or woman.

One could argue that the relationships, in which each of the spouses is fully equal to another one, are impossible. True, keeping balance and drawing the line between being supportive and overprotective is not easy. However, once two independent people start building a relationship based on respect and care, they will be able to search for compromises instead of trying to take full control over the household and the relationships.

The recent study has proven that the people, who are capable of making compromises and are ready for reconsidering their idea of family roles, make much stronger families than those, who follow the traditional pattern of the husband assuming the role of a breadwinner and the leader, while the wife enjoys a lesser role (Marks, Bun & McHale, 2009).

The education issue also makes a great case for introducing gender equality into marriage. According to the recent report, the states, in which gender inequality in marriage is considered a norm, women have fewer education opportunities and even often fail to graduate from high school due to the pressure of the social norms concerning marriage: in Africa, Asia, and the culture of the Roma, “Girls and young women […] are, however, more likely to leave school earlier than boys, due to their family responsibilities and the persisting gender roles in their communities” (European Commission, 2008, p. 6).

It could be suggested that not all women pursue the goal of getting a diploma. Indeed, because of the cultural specifics of most states in Asia and Africa, as well as the Roma culture, girls and young women do not consider career opportunities as an alternative to family life. Therefore, dedicating themselves to their families completely, they follow their dream.

Nevertheless, one must have an opportunity to choose education, even though one might want to choose other options. It is the freedom of choice that makes positive family relationships possible. In addition to the ethical issues concerning educational opportunities for wives, the economic aspect should also be considered. Understandably enough, a woman, who has received a high school or a university diploma, will be able to support the family financially in a much more efficient way.

The aforementioned argument brings one to another proof of equality as the sole basis for any relationships between a husband and a wife. Equality is the only possible way to help the wife and the husband realize the necessity to switch roles when needed. In the realm of the XXI century economy, new options, as well as new threats, have emerged for the representative of every single class. Hence, it is important to use the chances to earn money for the well being of the family whenever one has the chance to. As a result, it must be considered a norm for both a husband and a wife to work in order to sustain the family. As a result, the couple will need to reconsider roles and responsibilities distribution, seeing how the wife will not be able to manage the household issues entirely and deal with every single household chore.

The necessity to switch family roles is, perhaps, one of the most controversial aspects of gender equality principles planted in the realm of an XXI century marriage. For a range of reasons and very understandable ones at that, men often consider dealing with the problems that are traditionally referred to as “womanly” as something to be ashamed of. As a result, a woman becomes responsible not only for earning money but also for managing the household on her own. Therefore, a complete reconsideration of roles and responsibilities and, therefore, absolute gender equality principles must be implanted into the mechanism of family interactions between the husband and the wife.

Speaking of the problem of earnings and engagement in the family life and household chores, one should also bring up the fact that complete equality presupposes that a specific tool for spouses’ performance measurement should be designed in order to keep their contributions to their family fully equal. Indeed, different types of work demand different effort and strength, as well as attention and care. More to the point, seeing how even different types of household chores require different rates of engagement, comparing the spouses’ contribution to the family well being, is not going to be easy.

Even though measuring the effect that the husband and the wife’s attempts of sustaining their family have on the progress and benefit of the latter is hardly possible, sharing responsibilities still is a major part of being married, which both spouses have to understand. The solution to the absence of proper measurement tools for the couple’s performance is, in fact, quite simple – all that it takes to keep the family alive is being respectful to the spouse and their weaknesses, as well as acknowledge their rights for being treated fair. Caring about the way that the husband or the wife feels about themselves and their role in the family is the key to creating trustworthy relationships based on the principles of gender equality.

Finally, as raising children requires that both the mother and the father should play their roles in the process, a child can only become fully developed and self-sufficient if both parents are self-sufficient themselves: “Specifically, fathers’ contribution to stereotypically feminine housework predicted sons’ involvement in the same type of work in adulthood. Cunningham’s findings, along with other studies on household task division []…point to the importance of parents’ time spent on housework in children’s gender role development” (Marks, Bun & McHale, 2009, p. 223).

Judging by the examples provided above, gender equality is an integral part of a happy and efficient family. As long as both partners acknowledge each other’s independence and are able to act on their own, at the same time recognizing their responsibilities and willing to contribute to the family, it will be possible for them to create a very strong bond and raise independent children. Moreover, a child can learn the appropriate patterns of communication and building relationships with others only in the family where both the husband and the wife build the inequality of their relationship.

Marriage equality clearly poses a range of questions to the present institute of marriage, challenging its core principles and addressing a range of controversial issues on both the social and the psychological levels. Nevertheless, the idea of gender equality should still be used as the foundation for modern marriage, since it allows for the cooperation of two fully independent adults. The given model is considered the healthiest one, since it creates the premises for not only long relationships between the spouses, based on trust and care, but also creating a healthy environment for raising children into self-sufficient adults with an adequate vision of what family is and what the roles of its members are.

Reference List

European Commission (2008). Ethnic minority and Roma women in Europe: A case for gender equality? Milano, Italy: FGB. Web.

Marks, J., Bun, L. C., & McHale, S. M. (2009). Family patterns of gender role attitudes. Sex Roles, 61 (3–4), 221–234. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, May 19). Absolute Gender Equality in a Marriage. https://ivypanda.com/essays/absolute-gender-equality-in-a-marriage/

"Absolute Gender Equality in a Marriage." IvyPanda , 19 May 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/absolute-gender-equality-in-a-marriage/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Absolute Gender Equality in a Marriage'. 19 May.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Absolute Gender Equality in a Marriage." May 19, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/absolute-gender-equality-in-a-marriage/.

1. IvyPanda . "Absolute Gender Equality in a Marriage." May 19, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/absolute-gender-equality-in-a-marriage/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Absolute Gender Equality in a Marriage." May 19, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/absolute-gender-equality-in-a-marriage/.

• Food Retailing Industry in Turkey: Self-Sufficient Economics
• Professional Ethics. Employment of Spouses
• Spouse Abuse in the US: Functional Analysis Theory
• Gender Role Attitudes and Expectations for Marriage
• Marriage Types and Their Critical Components
• Collectivist and Individualist Parents
• Pornography Being “The Crack Cocaine of Sex Addiction”
• Making Sense of Selfies
• Analysis of Marital Relationship Problems
• Traditional Marriage and Love Marriage Comparison
• Marriage and Family Challenges
• Physical Health Problems in Marriage
• “His Needs, Her Needs” by Willard Harley
• Marriage and Love are Incompatible
• Intimacy, Love and Friendship

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Changing Gender Norms and Marriage Dynamics in the United States

Léa pessin.

Population Research Institute, Pennsylvania State University, Address: 704 Oswald Tower, University Park, PA 16802, Phone: 814-865-1849, Fax: 814-863-8342

Associated Data

Using a regional measure of gender norms from the General Social Surveys together with marital histories from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, this study explored how gender norms were associated with women’s marriage dynamics between 1968 and 2012. Results suggested that a higher prevalence of egalitarian gender norms predicted a decline in marriage formation. This decline was, however, only true for women without a college degree. For college-educated women, the association between gender norms and marriage formation became positive when gender egalitarianism prevailed. The findings also revealed an inverted U-shaped relationship between gender norms and divorce: an initial increase in divorce was observed when gender norms were predominantly traditional. The association, however, reversed as gender norms became egalitarian. No differences by education were found for divorce. The findings partially support the gender revolution framework but also highlight greater barriers to marriage for low-educated women as societies embrace gender equality.

Introduction

In the second half of the twentieth century, the redefined gender roles of women at home and in the labor market translated into a withdrawal from marriage, a decline in fertility, and an increase in marital instability. Unexpectedly, in the United States, divorce rates not only stabilized in the 1980s but also appear to have declined since then ( Goldstein, 1999 ). Following a similar pattern, divorce rates also reached a plateau in several European countries ( Härkönen, 2014 ). Ny the late 2000s, fertility trends also stopped declining across the developed world, with few exceptions ( Goldstein, Sobotka, & Jasilioniene, 2009 ).

A recent and novel explanation to demographic change suggests that the prevalence of egalitarian gender norms is key to understanding changes in partnership and fertility behaviors ( Esping-Andersen & Billari, 2015 ; McDonald, 2000 ). This idea, which I refer to as the gender revolution framework , argues that starting from the baby-boom era, demographic change has undergone two distinct phases ( Goldscheider, Bernhardt, & Lappegård, 2015 ). In the first phase, the discrepancy between women’s advancement in the public sphere and persistent traditional behavior in the private sphere produced an increase in family instability and a decline in fertility. The second phase emerged at the turn of the twenty-first century and is still ongoing. In this phase, we should observe a return of stable partnerships and fertility rates around replacement level as institutions and families start adapting to women’s new roles outside the household.

An implication of the gender revolution framework is that changes in society-level gender norms are associated with individual-level marriage behavior. An initial increase in the prevalence of egalitarian gender norms is predicted to lead to lower marriage rates and higher divorce rates. As egalitarian gender norms become dominant, we should see a return of stable partnerships. Even though previous studies have shown empirical evidence for the gender revolution framework’s predictions on fertility outcomes ( Arpino, Esping-Andersen, & Pessin, 2015 ; Myrskylä, Kohler, & Billari, 2011 ), no study has explicitly tested if the relationship also holds for marriage and divorce.

Furthermore, within the gender revolution framework, the link between changes in gender norms and partnership behavior are considered without making explicit reference to changes in marriage selectivity. I build upon the gender revolution perspective to argue that -in the United States- the adoption of egalitarian gender norms affects marriage and divorce rates unequally across educational groups. Although previous studies have provided ample support for an educational gradient of partnership behavior in the United States, little evidence exists on how college-education moderates the relationship between changes in contextual gender norms and individual-level propensities to marry and divorce in the United States (see Kalmijn, 2013 , for an exception on the case of Europe).

This study is framed by two main research questions. First, is there an association between the prevalence of egalitarian gender norms and marriage formation and divorce in the United States? By addressing this question, I provide a first empirical test of the gender revolution framework and assess whether it holds for the United States between the late 1960s and the early 2010s. Second, is the relationship between contextual gender norms and marriage dynamics even across educational groups? I develop and test the idea that the adoption of egalitarian gender norms affects marriage and divorce rates unequally across educational groups. In particular, I expect that the predictions of the gender revolution framework of a return to stable partnerships when societies have adopted egalitarian gender norms to be limited to the college-educated only. I argue that, in a context of high inequality with limited institutional support for families, such as the United States, the lower educated lack the opportunities and resources to form and maintain egalitarian relationships. To address these research questions, I combine gender role attitudes data from the General Social Surveys with individual-level marriage histories from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics to understand how changes in region-level gender norms have influenced individual-level marriage dynamics between 1968 and 2012.

Why the focus on marriage and not all types of partnership? The gender revolution framework predicts a return of stable partnerships as the revolution nears its completion ( Esping-Andersen & Billari, 2015 ; Goldscheider et al., 2015 ). In the United States, the prevalence of cohabitation has continued to increase since the 1970s ( Kennedy & Bumpass, 2008 ). Nevertheless, in the United States, cohabitation cannot be treated as a direct substitute for marriage. Unlike the patterns observed in European countries ( Cherlin, 2004 ), cohabiting unions have become increasingly unstable and less likely to lead to marriage ( Guzzo, 2014 )

In addition to being the first quantitative study to investigate the relationship between contextual gender norms and individual-level marriage behavior, this study makes three contributions to the literature. First, I provide a more comprehensive empirical and theoretical understanding of how resources and opportunities, i.e. college education, moderate the predictions of the gender revolution in the United States. Second, unlike previous studies that have used cross-sectional data and/or cross-national data, I use longitudinal data on marriage behavior together with historical attitudinal data to capture the dynamic relationship between changes in contextual gender norms and the decision to marry and divorce. Finally, I analyze jointly both entry into marriage and exit from marriage. The advantage of considering both events is that it provides a better understanding of the role played by marriage selectivity in the relationship between contextual gender norms and marriage dynamics.

The Gender Revolution Framework

The gender revolution framework was developed as an alternative theory to the Second Demographic Transition ( Lesthaeghe & van de Kaa, 1986 ) to understand recent reversals in family behavior ( Esping-Andersen & Billari, 2015 ; Goldscheider et al., 2015 ). The main tenet of the gender revolution framework is that, as societies embrace gender egalitarianism, fertility and partnerships are expected to stabilize. High divorce rates and lowest-low fertility levels correspond to transitional trends rather than outcomes of the gender revolution. This is an important distinction from the Second Demographic Transition, which predicts an irreversible evolution toward low fertility and marriage rates and high couple instability ( Goldscheider et al., 2015 ).

The gender revolution framework suggests that demographic change can be divided into two phases ( Goldscheider et al., 2015 ). In the first phase, as societies move away from the breadwinner-homemaker model, the discrepancy between women’s advancement outside the home and persistent traditional behavior in the private sphere produce an increase in family instability and a decline in fertility ( McDonald, 2000 ). In the second phase of the gender revolution, societies embrace an egalitarian view toward the family where both spouses are expected to financially provide for the family but also equally engage in domestic work. At this stage, as institutions and men adapt to women’s new roles outside the household, we should observe a return to stable partnerships and fertility levels around replacement rate.

The shift from the first to the second phase of the gender revolution lies in the adoption of egalitarian gender attitudes by a majority of the population, which will propel a behavioral and institutional shift in support of gender equality at home and in the labor market ( Esping-Andersen & Billari, 2015 ). Differently from other perspectives on the gender revolution (e.g. Cotter, Hermsen, & Vanneman, 2011 ; England, 2010 ), the gender revolution framework describes the advancement of the gender revolution as “irreversible” ( Esping-Andersen & Billari, 2015 , p.12). The higher educated are expected to lead the shift toward egalitarian attitudes and behavior and, therefore, to first experience greater partnership stability and fertility ( Goldscheider et al., 2015 ). The gender revolution framework, however, argues that educational differences will narrow as the gender revolution nears its completion.

Converging Ideals but Diverging Partnership Behavior

The United States is considered to have exited the first phase of the gender revolution and entered the second ( Stanfors & Goldscheider, 2017 ). Using the main indicator proposed by Arpino et al. (2015) and Esping-Andersen & Billari (2015) to identify the phases of the gender revolution, the majority of Americans have adopted egalitarian gender attitudes. Furthermore, in recent cohorts, Americans have expressed a strong preference for egalitarian partnerships as their ideal work-family model, with little variation across social classes and gender ( Gerson, 2010 ; Pedulla & Thébaud, 2015 ). It is important to recognize that the literature has not reached a consensus on whether a social class gradient to gender attitudes persists. What we can draw from existing findings is that differences in gender attitudes across social classes have diminished over time in the United States, especially in recent cohorts ( Gerson, 2010 ).

Although egalitarian ideals have gained dominance across social strata, college education has become a growing determinant of differentiation in partnership behavior in the United States ( McLanahan, 2004 ; Perelli-Harris & Gerber, 2011 ). Low educated men and women are increasingly less likely to marry and experience higher levels of marital instability with respect to the past ( Lundberg, Pollak, & Stearns, 2016 ). As noted by McLanahan (2004) , the higher educated and the lower educated are on two distinct and diverging family paths, which show no sign of convergence.

A limitation of the gender revolution framework is that it does not address how barriers to stable partnerships limit the adoption and stability of the egalitarian work-family ideal across social strata. Egalitarian gender norms signal the possibility of embracing egalitarian practices but they do not account for the structural and institutional impediments to change in family behavior ( Cherlin, 2016 ; Pedulla & Thébaud, 2015 ). Recent trends in gender egalitarianism and family behavior suggest that, in the United States, differentiated partnership behavior across social classes cannot be entirely attributed to differences in gender attitudes. Instead, these parallel trends highlight how opportunities and resources constrain individuals’ ability to enact their preferences ( Gerson, 2010 , p. 213).

The Gender Revolution in the United States: A Bifurcated Family Process

The gender revolution framework predicts a return to stable partnerships as society embraces egalitarian attitudes and practices. In the context of the United States, these predictions fit accurately the partnership behavior of young college-educated Americans, who are forming increasingly egalitarian and stable marriages. For the lower educated, however, marriage avoidance and marital instability dominate the second phase of the gender revolution because they lack the resources to form and maintain egalitarian partnerships. Applying the gender revolution framework to the United States, I argue that (1) the cultural meaning of marriage among the lower educated, (2) increasing economic inequality and (3) the lack of family policies are three distinctive features of the American context that shape a bifurcated family process as a response to the gender revolution.

In the United States, the practical value of marriage has declined but both the symbolic meaning of marriage and the desire to marry have remained high across all social classes ( Cherlin, 2004 ; Edin & Kefalas, 2005 ). Although marrying in fewer numbers, economically disadvantaged Americans continue to value marriage highly but often decide not to marry because they are unable to meet the financial standards they perceive as essential to marital stability ( Edin & Reed, 2005 ). The cultural meaning of these prerequisites remains modest and is often limited to securing two stable jobs, the ability to take out a mortgage, and to afford a wedding ceremony ( Edin & Kefalas, 2005 ; Gibson-Davis, 2009 ). With the growth of precarious employment, less educated Americans face low wages, with little to no benefits, and low job stability over their life course with respect to their higher-educated counterparts ( Kalleberg, 2012 ). In particular, the loss of good jobs for low educated men has increasingly contributed to preventing the less educated from securing the resources necessary to form stable partnerships, leading many disadvantaged Americans to forego marriage ( Autor, Dorn, & Hanson, 2017 ; Cherlin, 2014 ; McLanahan, 2004 ; Ruggles, 2015 ).

The economic and social barriers to marriage are further reinforced by the increasing prevalence of egalitarian gender norms, which promote the egalitarian model as the new ideal work-family arrangement for couples. This ideal remains, however, conditional on securing a stable employment and meeting the high time demands of parenting. In fact, in her qualitative interviews, Gerson (2010) found that young Americans are well aware of the economic and social challenges of forming an egalitarian partnership and often express fallback plans. Although the egalitarian ideal is shared among men and women, the fallback plans are highly gendered. As their “Plan B”, men would opt for a neo-traditional relationship, where the man is the primary worker and the woman the primary carer. In contrast, women would choose economic independence over a neo-traditional arrangement if an egalitarian relationship were not to be feasible. Because the structural barriers to the egalitarian ideal are unequal across social classes, marriage avoidance among lower educated women is likely to be reinforced by their inability to form egalitarian relationships and their preference for self-reliance as a fallback plan.

Furthermore, in the second part of the gender revolution framework, institutional support for dual-earner couples should facilitate the adoption of gender egalitarian practices within and outside the family ( Esping-Andersen & Billari, 2015 ). In the United States, however, the state is mostly silent on work-family issues ( Cooke & Baxter, 2010 ). Families resort to private services or rely on their relatives to outsource domestic work ( Lewis, 2009 ). The lack of public support for dual-earner families means that the lower educated are unlikely to be able to afford services that help the reconciliation of work and family demands; e.g. private childcare services or professional cleaners ( Craig, Perales, Vidal, & Baxter, 2016 ; Gerstel & Clawson, 2014 ). Furthermore, less educated women are also more likely to be in vulnerable occupations that provide little access to formal work-family benefits ( Enchautegui-de-Jesús, 2009 ). Maintaining the egalitarian ideal is likely to be more difficult for families with less resources and generate marital tensions when these egalitarian expectations are unmet ( Sherman, 2017 ). If it is only the highly educated who have the means to reduce their work-family challenges, the stabilization of marriages in the second phase of the gender revolution is likely to be concentrated among college-educated Americans.

The Current Study

This study tests four hypotheses that arise from the theoretical background. First, I provide an empirical test of the predictions of the gender revolution framework on entry into and exit from marriage. I expect that, when gender norms are predominantly traditional, an initial increase in the prevalence of egalitarian attitudes will produce a decline in marriage formation and a rise in divorce. As egalitarian gender norms gain dominance, the relationship should reverse. Specifically, I examine the following two hypotheses:

• Hypothesis 1a The association between society-level egalitarian gender norms and marriage formation follows a U-shaped relationship.
• Hypothesis 1b The association between society-level egalitarian gender norms and divorce follows an inverted U-shaped relationship.

The first two hypotheses, however, may not hold if there are important social class differences in the association between gender norms and marriage dynamics. Alternatively, I argue that the predictions of the gender revolution framework for marriage dynamics will produce a bifurcated response among the higher and lower social strata. I expect the reversals in marriage and divorce rates at higher levels of egalitarian gender norms to be concentrated among the college-educated. Specifically, I examine the following two hypotheses:

• Hypothesis 2a An increase in egalitarian gender norms predicts a decline in marriage formation for women without college education. In contrast, I expect the relationship between egalitarian gender norms and marriage to be U-shaped for college-educated women.
• Hypothesis 2b An increase in egalitarian gender norms predicts a rise in divorce for women without college education. In contrast, I expect the relationship between egalitarian gender norms and divorce to be inverted U-shaped for college-educated women.

The empirical analysis combined individual- and regional-level data to study how contextual gender norms influence entry into and exit from marriage. I matched individual-level marriage histories from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics ( https://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/ ) to a regional index of gender norms constructed from the General Social Surveys ( http://gss.norc.org/ ). The analysis also included time-varying regional variables, which were based on the March Current Population Surveys data from the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series ( https://usa.ipums.org/usa/ ) ( King et al., 2010 ). Descriptive statistics for all variables are presented in Table 1 for the marriage models and in Table 2 for the divorce models. Further explanation on how each variable was constructed and a report on missing values can be found in the online appendix A .

Descriptive statistics of variables for the marriage models.

Note: Woman-years = 100,978, Women = 12,073, Number of unpartnered spells = 14,014, Number of marriages = 6,430. SD = Standard deviation. sq. = squared. Sample weights are applied.

Descriptive statistics of variables for the divorce models.

Note: Woman-years = 70,574. Women = 8,066. Number of marriage spells = 8,713. Number of divorces = 1,914. SD = Standard deviation. sq. = squared. Sample weights are applied.

The analysis focused on U.S. women who were present in the PSID between the years 1968 to 2012 and who reported a complete marital history. Retrospective marriage data were collected retrospectively for all respondents starting in 1985. The marital histories were defined from the woman’s perspective and were restricted to marriages that occurred between 1968 and 2012 for spouses between the ages of 16 and 40. Observations were right-censored at the earliest of the following events: the death of the respondent, age 40 or the last recorded interview.

Previously married women and higher-order marriages were included in the analysis. The final sample for the marriage models was composed of 12,073 women who experienced 14,014 spells of singlehood of which 6,430 ended in marriage. Spells of singlehood had an average duration of about 8 years and about 18% had been previously married (See Table 1 ). The final sample for the divorce analysis was composed of 8,066 women who experienced 8,713 marriages of which 1,914 ended in divorce. Marriages had an average duration of about 6 years, first order marriages represented 87% of the sample, and the average age at marriage was 23 (See Table 2 ). Descriptive statistics were weighted using family weights, normalized to one in each survey year. I chose not to weight the statistical models because my control variables adjusted for the major factors used in constructing the weights. Additional analyses showed that the main findings were robust to the use of sample weights (See the online appendix E ).

Outcome variables: Marriage and divorce events

The dependent variable for the marriage model was defined as a binary variable that took the value of 1 in the year in which the respondent got married and 0 otherwise. For the divorce model, the dependent variable was also defined as a binary variable that took the value of 1 in the year in which the couple either separated or divorced and 0 otherwise. Whenever both the separation and divorce dates were reported, the earliest date was considered as the end of the marriage.

Key explanatory variables

The key explanatory variables were a contextual indicator of gender attitudes and its interaction with women’s educational attainment. Following the gender revolution framework, the first empirical test laid in the functional form of the relationship between the prevalence of egalitarian gender attitudes and the two outcome variables of interest: marriage and divorce. Turning to the bifurcated family process hypotheses, the second empirical test laid in the interaction between whether the respondent had a 4-year college degree and the prevalence of egalitarian gender attitudes. I followed the operationalization of the gender revolution framework developed in Arpino et al. (2015) and Esping-Andersen & Billari (2015) , where the prevalence of egalitarian gender attitudes was used to capture the advancement of the gender revolution.

The contextual indicator of gender attitudes, which I labeled the gender norms index, was aggregated at the regional level and for every year between 1968 and 2012. The gender norms index was based on the following questions from the GSS: (i) It is much better for everyone involved if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home and family (FEFAM); (ii) A working mother can establish as warm and secure a relationship with her children as a mother who does not work (FECHLD); (iii) A preschool child is likely to suffer if his or her mother works (FEPRESC). The questionnaire asked respondents, on a 1 ( strongly agree ) to 4 ( strongly disagree ) scale, to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement.

These three questions were asked in the following 18 survey years: in 1977, 1985–1986, 1988–1991, 1993 and every two years from 1994 to 2012. All the available surveys were pooled and a principal-factor analysis was carried out to obtain a unique index where higher scores represented more egalitarian gender attitudes (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.74; see Appendix B for more details). To fill the missing years before 1977 and between 1977 and 2010, an interpolation was carried out. Additional analyses showed that the results were not sensitive to the interpolation of the gender index (See the online appendix E ). In the regression models, the gender norms index was centered on its grand mean.

The index used in this paper replicates closely the one developed by Cotter et al. (2011) to capture trends in gender attitudes in the United States. The three items loaded on a unique factor but they summarized several dimensions of gender ideology: gendered separate spheres, mother’s guilt and working women’s relationship quality with their children (see Davis and Greenstein, 2009 , for a review). All of which were relevant to the theoretical argument of this article. Ideally, the gender index should have also included items regarding men and fatherhood but no such questions were asked in early years of the GSS.

The gender norms index was aggregated at the regional level to capture contextual norms toward gender roles. The region classification corresponds to the U.S. census divisions (see the online appendix C for the definition of each region). The unit of aggregation was the region rather than the state for two main reasons: (1) The public version of the GSS only provided the region at interview; (2) The target sample of the GSS was of about 1,500 respondents, which was excessively small to derive reliable state-level measures. The state level would have provided a more accurate unit of analysis but the region had the advantage of decreasing the risk of non-random assignment to the context of residence.

Control variables

In both the marriage and divorce models, I controlled for the woman’s level of education, her race, and her region of residence. I also included two variables to capture family attributes: the number of children in the household and an indicator variable for the presence of children under the age of 4. The education variable was composed of four categories: less than high school (the reference category), high school diploma, 2-year college/some college, 4-year college degree or more. The race variable included three categories: white (reference category), Black, or other race or ethnicity. The region of residence variable took nine different values: New England (reference category), Middle Atlantic, East North Central, West North Central, South Atlantic, East South Central, West South Central, Mountain, Pacific.

In the marriage analysis, I also considered whether the respondent had been married previously and included dummy variables for the year of birth (the omitted category was the largest birth year, 1964). The respondent’s age at the time of the survey was controlled for using a categorical variable, which took five values: 16–18 (reference category), 19–21, 22–24, 25–27, 31–40. The divorce models controlled for age at marriage and its squared value, whether it was the wife’s first marriage and dummy variables for the marriage year (the omitted category was the largest marriage cohort, 1973). For the husband, educational attainment was included, whereas race and age at marriage were excluded because they are highly correlated with the wife’s characteristics. The husband’s education variable took four values: less than high school (the reference category), high school diploma, 2-year college/some college, 4-year college degree or more. Spousal age difference was also included as a categorical variable taking the following three values: the age difference was inferior to two years (reference category), the wife was at least two years older, the husband was at least two years older. Finally, in the marriage models, the duration was specified as a quadratic function and in the divorce models, as a logarithmic function. The duration functional forms were chosen to fit best the data.

In the biennial survey years, time-varying variables were imputed using information reported in the adjacent years. For the region of residence, additional survey questions about the respondent’s geographical move were used to impute the missing years (see the online appendix A for a detailed explanation).

At the regional level, I considered alternative contextual mechanisms to gender norms, which were found to be relevant in previous studies. Using IPUMS March CPS, I constructed yearly variables to control for women’s changing roles in the labor market and in tertiary education by including the regional women’s employment rate and the regional share of women with tertiary education. To avoid controlling for factors that might be on the causal pathway from gender norms to marriage dynamics, I lagged the women’s education and employment variables by five years. Finally, the regional men’s unemployment rate was also included to capture the deterioration of men’s position in the labor market.

Entry into and exit from marriage were estimated using a discrete event-history logistic model with random effects at the woman-level to account for repeated events. For each outcome, I estimated four models in sequence. Model 1 was specified as follows:

For a woman i living in region r and in year t with individual-level characteristics X irt , the corresponding gender norms index is represented by f (GI rt ). f (.) represents the functional form of the gender norms index. In line with the hypotheses, both a linear and quadratic functional form were tested for each model. I r is a set of dummy variables for each region. I c is also a set of dummy variable for each cohort. In the marriage models, I controlled for the birth cohort, i.e. the year of birth, and in the divorce models for the marriage cohort, i.e. the year of marriage. The regional and cohort fixed effects controlled for unobservable and time-invariant differences in marriage propensities of each cohort and region. For the divorce models, I considered the marriage year rather than the birth year to capture the context at the time of marriage. Furthermore, in all the models, I indirectly controlled for the effects of the historical context ( Teachman, 2002 , p. 335). In the marriage model, the historical context was defined as the sum of the birth year, the unpartnered duration and the respondent’s age (age was necessary because I included repeated events). In the divorce model, the historical context was defined as the sum of marriage year, the marriage duration, and the respondent’s age at marriage (here as well age at marriage was necessary because higher-order marriages were included in the analysis).

Model 2 added a linear regional-specific cohort trends L cr , which is an interaction between the cohort year and the region of residence:

The region-specific cohort trends accounted for unobservable trends within cohort and region, which could be correlated with changes in gender norms. For example, one would expect that religiosity and the acceptance of divorce followed similar trends to gender norms for each cohort and within the different regions in the sample.

Model 3 added three regional time-varying confounders Z rt as discussed in the control variables:

The region-year variables were introduced in the model to control for spuriousness between gender norms and the two outcome variables of interest: marriage and divorce. These control variables captured parallel structural changes that may be related to both gender attitudes and partnership behavior. Failing to control for these variables could lead to confounding the effect of gender norms with other variables, which also affected our variables of interest. Moreover, these control variables were measured at the regional level and were time varying and, therefore, contributed to removing any period effects from the estimated coefficients for the gender norms index.

Model 4 included an interaction between the gender norms index and the respondent’s college education attainment:

The coefficient δ indicates whether the relationship between contextual gender norms and marriage dynamics was different for women with and without a college education.

The structure of the results section is as follows. First, I focus on the association between regional gender norms and marriage. Then, I turn to the findings for divorce. For each outcome, I present the results for the four models described above comparing a linear and quadratic functional form to model the relationship between regional gender norms and marriage dynamics. Finally, I assess the robustness of the main findings by carrying out several sensitivity checks.

Gender Norms and Marriage Formation

Table 3 presents the results from the discrete event-history analysis of the association between gender norms and marriage formation. For the sake of parsimony, Table 3 only shows the coefficients of the key explanatory variables. The estimates for all the control variables can be found in the online appendix D in Table D1 for the linear functional form and in Table D2 for the quadratic functional form.

Gender Norms Index as a Predictor of Marriage: Multilevel Logistic Regression

Notes: Woman-years = 100,978, Women = 12,073, Number of unpartnered spells = 14,014, Number of marriages = 6,430. Time-varying regional variables = men’s unemployment rate, % of women with tertiary education, women’s employment rate. The linear and quadratic cells represent results from a separate regression model. All the models include all time-constant and time-varying control variables in Table 1 (Model 4 includes education as a binary variable instead of categorical variable). B = Log-odds. SE B = Standard error of the log-odds. OR = Odds ratio. sq. = squared.

Starting from the gender revolution framework (Hypothesis 1a), I focus on the first three models presented in Table 3 to evaluate the association between regional gender norms and marriage. The results showed that only the linear specification was statistically significant (see Model 1–3 in Table 3 ). When both the linear and quadratic terms of the gender norms index were included, the coefficient of the quadratic term never reached statistical significance.

In the linear specification, the gender norms index coefficient was statistically significant (p<0.001) and negative. The results presented in Table 3 suggested that increases toward gender-equal norms predicted a linear and negative relationship with the probability of marriage formation. Going from Model 1 to Model 3, the coefficient of the gender norms index became smaller as the regional confounders were included in the model.

To illustrate the magnitude of the association between the regional gender norms index and the probability of marriage formation, Figure 1-A displays the predicted probabilities of marriage going from a traditional regional context to an egalitarian one. The full line represents the predicted values and the grey area corresponds to the 95% confidence intervals. The plotted values are based on Model 3-Linear in Table 3 and the average predicted probabilities were calculated holding all other independent variables to their actual values. In line with the findings presented in Table 3 , increases in egalitarian gender norms were negatively associated with marriage formation.

AVERAGE PREDICTED ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE GENDER NORMS INDEX AND MARRIAGE.

As shown by the results presented in Table 3 and the predicted probabilities illustrated in Figure 1-A , the relationship between gender-egalitarian norms and the probability of marriage did not show any sign of reversal or tapering, as the gender revolution framework would predict. The results did not support the Hypothesis 1a of a U-shaped relationship between egalitarian gender norms and marriage.

Yet, the results presented for Model 1–3 in Table 3 applied to women of all education levels. To bring further evidence to the bifurcated family process argument (Hypothesis 2a), the empirical findings need to show that changes in the prevalence of gender-egalitarian norms predict diverging marriage patterns by educational attainment. In Table 3 , Model 4 included the gender norms index and its interaction with having a 4-year college degree. Both the linear and quadratic specifications are presented in Table 3 . Because the reference category of the education variable corresponds to not having a college degree, the coefficients of the gender norms index can be interpreted for non-college graduates. The interactions between college education and the gender norms index test whether the relationship between gender norms and marriage is different by women’s education.

In both the linear and quadratic specification, the results showed that the interactions were positive and statistically significant (Model 4 in Table 3 ). Focusing on the quadratic Model 4, the results showed that the quadratic term of the gender norms index was only statistically significant when interacted with college education. This coefficient suggested that the negative relationship between the regional gender norms index and marriage only applied to non-college graduates. Instead, for women with college education, the relationship appeared to be non-linear.

To further understand the results of Model 4, Figure 1-B illustrates the predicted probabilities of marriage -by educational attainment -going from a traditional regional context with respect to gender norms to an egalitarian one (Model 4-Quadratic in Table 3 ). For college-educated women, the relationship between the regional gender index and marriage is represented by a full line. For women without a 4-year college degree, the average predicted probabilities are depicted by a dashed line. The predictive margins were calculated holding all other independent variables to their actual values. To test whether the educational gradient is statistically significant, the average predicted probabilities are presented with confidence intervals adapted for pairwise comparisons ( Goldstein & Healy, 1995 ).

In line with the regression results presented in Table 3 , the differences in predicted probabilities between women with a 4-year college degree and women without one were statistically significant, as shown by the lack of overlap in the confidence intervals. Figure 1-B shows that increases in the prevalence of egalitarian gender-norms predicted a steep decline in marriage rate for women without college education. For college-educated women, the relationship between regional gender norms and marriage followed a U-shaped relationship. Overall, college-educated women had a lower predicted probability of marrying with respect to their less-educated counterparts. However, when the gender index reached a value of about −0.25, the predicted marriage rate for college-educated women started increasing and overtook the one for women without a college education.

Taken together, the empirical findings for marriage provided robust evidence for Hypothesis 2a. The results showed that changes in the prevalence of egalitarian gender norms predicted a bifurcated family process between those with and without college education.

Gender Norms and Divorce

Table 4 presents the results from the discrete event-history analysis of the association between gender norms and divorce. For the sake of parsimony, Table 4 only shows the coefficients of the key explanatory variables of interest. The estimates for all the control variables can be found in the online appendix D in Table D3 for the linear functional form and in Table D4 for the quadratic functional form.

Gender Norms Index as a Predictor of Divorce: Multilevel Logistic Regression

Notes: Woman-years = 70,574. Women = 8,066. Number of marriage spells = 8,713. Number of divorces = 1,914. Time-varying regional variables = men’s unemployment rate, % of women with tertiary education, women’s employment rate. The linear and quadratic cells represent results from a separate regression model. All the models include all time-constant and time-varying control variables in Table 2 (Model 4 includes wife’s education as a binary variable instead of categorical variable). SE B = Standard error of the log-odds. OR = Odds ratio. sq. = squared.

As with the marriage models, I first focus on Model 1–3 in Table 4 , which capture the association between the regional gender norms index and divorce for women across all levels of education. Comparing the coefficients for the gender norms index in the linear and the quadratic models, the results showed that only the quadratic functional was statistically significant. In the quadratic models, the linear and quadratic coefficients of the gender index were negative and statistically significant. The quadratic divorce models’ findings implied a non-linear relationship between regional gender norms and the probability to divorce. When gender norms were traditional, an increase in the prevalence of egalitarian gender norms was positively associated with divorce. Conversely, when gender norms became predominantly egalitarian, the relationship reversed. These results remained consistent through the three different model specifications.

Figure 2 shows the average predicted divorce probability corresponding to different levels of the gender norms index. The predicted probabilities are based on Model 3-Quadratic in Table 4 . The values plotted in Figure 2 were calculated holding all other independent variables to their actual values. The full line illustrates the predicted divorce probability using the quadratic form regression. The gray area represents the 95% confidence intervals around the predicted values. The vertical line indicates the value of the gender norms index at which the relationship reverses.

AVERAGE PREDICTED ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE GENDER NORMS INDEX AND DIVORCE.

Confirming the results presented in Table 4 , the predicted probabilities showed an inverted U-shaped pattern between the regional average gender norms and the probability of divorce. The results suggested that it was only when a larger share of society had adopted egalitarian gender attitudes that an increase in gender norms became negatively associated with divorce. The reversal in the relationship between gender norms and divorce occurred when the index took a value of about −.2.

The findings for divorce were in line with the gender revolution perspective (Hypothesis 2a), which predicted an inverted U-shaped relationship between regional gender norms and marital dissolution. An initial increase in the prevalence of egalitarian gender norms had a destabilizing effect on marriage. However, when egalitarian gender norms were supported by a critical mass, a decline in divorce was observed as society moved toward equality.

Turning to the bifurcated family process argument, the divorce models were replicated including an interaction term between regional gender norms and college education. Results are presented in Model 4 in Table 4 . In both the linear and quadratic Model 4, none of the interactions terms between gender norms and having a 4-year college degree were found to be statistically significant. In contrast with the marriage results, the findings presented in Table 4 showed that there was no educational gradient to the relationship between gender norms and divorce. Contrary to Hypothesis 2b, the relationship between contextual gender norms and divorce was not moderated by college education.

Sensitivity analysis

To address concerns about the robustness of the findings, the models were re-estimated under the following specifications: (i) excluding higher order events; (ii) excluding years prior to 1977 where the gender norms index was extrapolated; (iii) separately for households with and without children; (iv) lagging the gender norms index by one or two years; (v) including a quadratic or a cubic cohort trend; (vi) including additional control variables to measure legal access to the Pill and abortion and changes in divorce laws; (vii) constraining all respondents to their first observed region of residence; (viii) applying different sample weights and excluding the low-income families oversample (SEO); (vi) measuring contextual gender norms at the national level instead of the regional level. The main findings of the article remained consistent across the different model specifications. The results of the sensitivity analysis can be found in online appendix E .

The main contributions of this article are two-fold. First, this article presented the first empirical test of the gender revolution framework on marriage dynamics in the United States. Second, the gender revolution framework was contrasted with the bifurcated family process perspective to argue that -in the United States- increases in egalitarian gender norms affected marriage and divorce rates unequally across educational groups. To test these different hypotheses, I applied event-history analysis to a unique combination of datasets from the GSS, PSID and IPUMS-March CPS to study the association between contextual gender norms and entry into marriage and exit from marriage between the 1960s and 2010s.

The marriage results showed that the relationship between regional gender norms and marriage was moderated by whether women have a 4-year college degree. Indeed, regional shifts toward gender equality predicted a decline in marriage for women without a college degree. Consistently with the bifurcated family process argument, gender-egalitarian contexts were negatively associated with marriage formation and evidenced the increasing selectivity of marriage. Instead, for college-educated women, the relationship between gender norms and marriage followed closely the predictions of the gender revolution framework of a U-shaped relationship between egalitarian gender norms and marriage. An initial increase in egalitarianism when gender norms were mainly traditional predicted a decline in marriage. However, the relationship reversed as egalitarian gender norms became dominant. At very high levels of the gender norms index, college-educated women even experienced a higher probability of marriage with respect to their less-educated counterparts.

Turning to the divorce results, the association between regional gender norms and divorce followed an inverted U-shape. When gender norms were traditional, an increase in equality was positively associated with marital instability. Once the prevalence of gender-egalitarian attitudes reached intermediary levels, the association between gender-egalitarian attitudes and divorce became negative. These findings are fully consistent with the predictions of the gender revolution perspective. Furthermore, in contrast with the marriage results, I did not find an educational gradient to the relationship between gender norms and divorce.

How can these results be interpreted? Taken together, the marriage and divorce findings provided mixed evidence for both the gender revolution and the bifurcated family process perspectives. The patterns observed for college-educated women suggest that highly educated women in gender-egalitarian contexts find marriage more attractive and experience lower levels of marital instability. These findings align perfectly with the predictions of the gender revolution of a return to stability as egalitarian gender norms and opportunities for women outside the home align. For women without college education, however, the shift from traditionalism to egalitarianism predicts a continuous decline in marriage, which is consistent with the economic and social barriers to marriage literature ( Edin & Reed, 2005 ). The finding is also in line with a recent study by Kalmijn (2013) , which found that in more gender-egalitarian European countries, higher educated women were more likely to be in a union.

Furthermore, the parallel findings of an increase in marriage avoidance and a decline in divorce among lower educated women suggest that marriage selectivity is at play. As the gender revolution progresses, lower educated women appear to be choosing self-reliance over marriage when resources constrain the possibility of a stable and egalitarian marriage ( Edin and Reed, 2005 ; Gerson, 2010 ). As a consequence, the decline in divorce across all educational groups can partially be attributed to the fact that women who anticipate a higher risk of divorce select themselves out of marriage in the second phase of the gender revolution.

The analysis does not come without caveats. Although a strength of this article was the longitudinal approach, the data also presented some limitations because fewer control variables could be included in the analysis when using the entire span of the PSID. For example, religiosity, parental divorce and mother’s employment during childhood were three important variables that could not be considered in the 1968–2012 analysis. The PSID is also not representative of new waves of immigrants and, therefore, the findings cannot be generalized to these sub-groups of the U.S. population.

Another limitation of this study is that gender norms could only be measured at the regional level. The U.S. census divisions captured important regional variation in attitudes, nevertheless, recent studies that used cross-sectional data have shown that lower levels of geographical analysis can reveal important differences in the relationship between contextual variables and partnership behavior (e.g. Cherlin, Ribar, & Yasutake, 2016 ). Also, because the PSID does not provide any measures of gender ideology, the models did not control for the respondent’s own gender ideology. One the one hand, this study found an educational gradient to the relationship between gender norms and marriage, which could capture differences in gender ideology between working-class and middle-class women. On the other hand, the divorce results suggested that the relationship between gender norms and divorce is the same across social strata. Future work should integrate both individual and contextual measures of gender ideology to shed further light on these findings.

Overall, the results of this study suggest that, in the United States, the predictions of the gender revolution framework apply to the college-educated only. I have argued that egalitarian gender norms only provide the possibility of adopting a stable egalitarian model. For Americans without a college degree, however, rising barriers to marriage prevent them from reaching this new egalitarian ideal. The findings suggest that in a liberal welfare state with rising income inequality, the outcomes of the gender revolution increasingly appear to follow a bifurcated family process. Unless the state provides an ampler safety net for lower educated workers and supports dual-earner and dual-carer families, the gender revolution is unlikely to produce a unique social outcome in the United States. If we want to foster stable and egalitarian partnerships, we need theoretical frameworks and policies that enable men and women to act in accordance with their egalitarian preferences across all social strata.

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments.

The work has benefited from useful discussions with Bruno Arpino, Diederik Boertien, Joan Carreras Timoneda, Sarah Damaske, Gøsta Esping-Andersen, Valarie King, Ashley Larsen Gibby, Sarah E. Patterson, Roberta Rutigliano, participants at PAA (2015) and the Population Research Institute Family Working Group (Pennsylvania State University). The author gratefully acknowledges financial support during her PhD from the European Research Council through the advanced ERC Grant ERC-2010-AdG-269387 (Family polarization, P.I. Gøsta Esping-Andersen) and during her postdoctoral fellowship from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to the Population Research Institute at The Pennsylvania State University for Population Research Infrastructure (P2-CHD041025) and Family Demography Training (T32-HD007514).

• Arpino B, Esping-Andersen G, Pessin L. How do changes in gender role attitudes towards female employment influence fertility? A macro-level analysis. European Sociological Review. 2015; 31 (3):370–382. doi: 10.1093/esr/jcv002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Autor D, Dorn D, Hanson G. (NBER Working Paper, 23173). When work disappears: manufacturing decline and the falling marriage-market value of men. 2017 [ Google Scholar ]
• Cherlin AJ. The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2004; 66 (4):848–861. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3600162 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Cherlin AJ. Labor’s love lost: the rise and fall of the working-class family in America. Russell Sage Foundation; 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cherlin AJ. A Happy ending to a half-century of family change? Population and Development Review. 2016; 42 (1):121–129. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2016.00111.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cherlin AJ, Ribar DC, Yasutake S. Nonmarital first births, marriage, and income inequality. American Sociological Review. 2016; 81 (4):749–770. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooke LP, Baxter J. “Families” in international context: Comparing institutional effects across Western societies. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2010; 72 (3):516–536. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cotter D, Hermsen JM, Vanneman R. The end of the gender revolution? Gender role attitudes from 1977 to 2008. American Journal of Sociology. 2011; 117 (1):259–289. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Craig L, Perales F, Vidal S, Baxter J. Domestic outsourcing, housework time, and subjective time pressure: New insights from longitudinal data. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2016; 78 (5):1224–1236. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12321. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davis SN, Greenstein TN. Gender ideology: Components, predictors, and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology. 2009; 35 :87–105. [ Google Scholar ]
• Edin K, Kefalas M. Promises I can keep: Why poor women put motherhood before marriage. University of California Press; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Edin K, Reed JM. Why don’t they just get married? Barriers to marriage among the disadvantaged. The Future of Children. 2005; 15 (2):117–137. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Enchautegui-de-Jesús N. Challenges Experienced by Vulnerable Hourly Workers: Issues to Consider in the Policy Conversation to Address These Problems. In: Booth A, Crouter AC, editors. Work-Life Policies that Make a Real Difference for Individuals, Families, and Organizations. Washington, DC: Urban Institute; 2009. pp. 207–217. [ Google Scholar ]
• England P. The gender revolution: Uneven and stalled. Gender & Society. 2010; 24 (2):149–166. [ Google Scholar ]
• Esping-Andersen G, Billari FC. Re-theorizing family demographics. Population and Development Review. 2015; 41 (1):1–31. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2015.00024.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gerson K. The unfinished revolution: How a new generation is reshaping family, work, and gender in America. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gerstel N, Clawson D. Class advantage and the gender divide: Flexibility on the job and at home. American Journal of Sociology. 2014; 120 (2):395–431. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibson-Davis CM. Money, marriage, and children: Testing the financial expectations and family formation theory. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2009; 71 (1):146–160. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldscheider F, Bernhardt E, Lappegård T. The gender revolution: A framework for understanding changing family and demographic behavior. Population and Development Review. 2015; 41 (2):207–239. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldstein JR. The leveling of divorce in the United States. Demography. 1999; 36 (3):409–414. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldstein H, Healy MJ. The graphical presentation of a collection of means. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society) 1995; 158 (1):175–177. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldstein JR, Sobotka T, Jasilioniene A. The end of “lowest-low” fertility? Population and Development Review. 2009; 35 (4):663–699. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guzzo KB. Trends in cohabitation outcomes: Compositional changes and engagement among never-married young adults. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2014; 76 (4):826–842. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Härkönen J. Divorce trends, patterns, causes, consequences. In: Treas J, Scott J, Richards M, editors. The Wiley-Blackwell companion to the sociology of families. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalleberg AL. Good jobs, bad jobs. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalmijn M. The educational gradient in marriage: A comparison of 25 European countries. Demography. 2013; 50 (4):1499–1520. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kennedy S, Bumpass L. Cohabitation and children’s living arrangements: New estimates from the United States. Demographic Research. 2008; 19 :1663. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• King M, Ruggles S, Alexander JT, Flood S, Genadek K, Schroeder MB, Vick R. Integrated public use microdata series, current population survey: Version 3.0 2010 [ Google Scholar ]
• Lesthaeghe R, Van de Kaa DJ. Twee demografische transities (Bevolking: Groei en krimp) Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus; 1986. pp. 9–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewis J. Work-family balance, gender and policy. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lundberg S, Pollak RA, Stearns J. Family inequality: Diverging patterns in marriage, cohabitation, and childbearing. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2016; 30 (2):79–101. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McDonald P. Gender equity in theories of fertility transition. Population and Development Review. 2000; 26 (3):427–439. [ Google Scholar ]
• McLanahan S. Diverging destinies: How children are faring under the Decond Demographic Transition. Demography. 2004; 41 (4):607–627. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Myrskylä M, Kohler HP, Billari FC. High development and fertility: Fertility at older reproductive ages and gender equality explain the positive link. Population Studies Center, University of Pennsylvania; 2011. (PSC Working Paper Series No. PSC 11-06). [ Google Scholar ]
• Pedulla DS, Thébaud S. Can we finish the revolution? Gender, work-family ideals, and institutional constraint. American Sociological Review. 2015; 80 (1):116–139. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perelli-Harris B, Gerber TP. Nonmarital childbearing in Russia: Second demographic transition or pattern of disadvantage? Demography. 2011; 48 (1):317–342. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ruggles S. Patriarchy, power, and pay: The transformation of American families, 1800–2015. Demography. 2015; 52 (6):1797–1823. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sherman J. “Stress That I Don’t Need”: Gender Expectations and Relationship Struggles among the Poor. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2017; 79 (3):657–674. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanfors M, Goldscheider F. The forest and the trees: Industrialization, demographic change, and the ongoing gender revolution in Sweden and the United States, 1870–2010. Demographic Research. 2017; 36 :173–226. [ Google Scholar ]
• Teachman JD. Stability across cohorts in divorce risk factors. Demography. 2002; 39 (2):331–351. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Parenting & Family Parenting Family Pregnancy
• Courses Marriage Save My Marriage Pre Marriage
• Quizzes Relationship Quizzes Love Quizzes Couples Quiz
• Find a Therapist

10 Ways on How Do Gender Roles Impact Marriage?

Rachael Pace inspires with motivational articles on loving partnerships. She encourages making room for love and facing challenges together.

In This Article

One of the keys to a successful and healthy marriage is smooth cooperation and partnership between both parties. Sometimes, the strength of a marriage can be tested by how partners carry out their roles to make the union work.

Over time, there have been different perspectives on how some traditional gender roles in marriage are specific to either males or females. But recently, some studies have opined that these marriage roles can be handled by anyone, irrespective of their gender. In this article, you will learn more about gender roles in marriage and how it impacts the union.

Definition of gender roles in marriage

When it comes to gender roles in marriage, it refers to the expectations of men and women regarding their responsibilities and duties. This also means that some roles in marriage might be performed by one partner due to some factors.

For instance, concerning the traditional gender roles in marriage, which have existed for a long time, men were seen as the home providers while women were required to stay at home and care for the kids.

Historical perspective of gender roles in marriage

Regarding gender roles in marriage, it is important to mention that in most cases, men have been viewed as assertive, self-motivated, and primary providers in the home. In comparison, women are mostly considered the homemaker and the one who spends more time with the children.

Some schools of thought believed that since the man was perceived to be the head of the family, he held more power to make crucial decisions than the woman. However, recent studies have shown that men are more open to making decisions alongside their partners.

Additionally, more individuals now expect their male partners to contribute to household duties and childcare while working.

10 ways on how do gender roles impact marriage?

It is crucial to mention that issues associated with gender roles can affect every aspect of the family and marital life. However, learning the impact of gender roles in family life would be quintessential to restoring unity, love, and security in the marriage.

1. Regular conflicts and tension

When it comes to gender roles in marriage, one way it impacts marriages is the conflicts and tension associated with executing some of these responsibilities.

One party might feel that times have changed and should not be held liable for carrying out some of these duties. This may lead to regular conflict in the home, especially when neither party is willing to compromise for the other. It could also cause tension between partners where they begin to feel irritated and resentful about each other and the marriage in general.

2. Comparison in marriages

Another impact of gender roles in marriage is comparison . Partners might begin to compare their spouses in other marriages who are doing things absent in their union. When comparison enters a marriage, it can kill the joy and love between partners.

It is expedient to state that each marriage is different and can function best depending on what both partners are willing to bring to the table. This means that traditional marriage roles might work well in one marriage and may not give the same result in another marriage.

Watch this video on the dangers of comparing spouses: 

3. Negligence of duties

Gender roles in marriage can also affect the union by causing negligence of duties from both partners. In addition, since there might be disagreements regarding who is responsible for carrying out some duties in the marriage, these roles might be left unattended.

If there are children in the marriage, they might be affected by the negligence of duties because of gender role differences. In addition, some unsuccessful marriages are often associated with negligence of duties because they are unwilling to agree on how responsibilities should be handled.

4. Differences in parenting style

There might also be differences in parenting style due to the gender roles in marriage. For example, one party might have a different view on how to raise children, and their partner might not be comfortable with it.

However, one of the mistakes that couples make in marriages is allowing their differences in parenting style to ruin the union. It would help to listen to each other and find common ground on what is important, even if you have different views on parenting.

5. Lack of teamwork

If you see a successful marriage, there are good chances of good teamwork between partners. This means that both parties are willing to work together to achieve their short-term and long-term goals in the marriage .

They are likely to put aside the roles that are stereotypically assigned to their genders and work on providing a balance to make things run smoothly. However, partners keen on executing their gender roles in marriages might not get mutual respect, love, and admiration from their partners.

6. Physical and emotional unavailability

It is interesting to mention that gender roles in marriage can cause physical and emotional unavailability. When partners begin to disagree on different issues because of gender roles, they might begin to distance themselves from each other.

They might also not respond to their emotional needs, which can make them less committed to the marriage. If this happens, their marriage can be restored if they agree to put their differences aside and work together.

7. Lack of unity

Unity is one of the key anchors that hold a marriage, and the absence of this feature means that the marriage may not be successful in the long run. Gender responsibilities and, sometimes, traditional marriage roles can affect unity in a home.

Both partners may not see the need to work together and have a unified front on different issues and decisions. In addition, they might not have the same mind and purpose in marriage because of the view differences in gender roles.

8. It causes contempt and resentment

Another way on how traditional husband and wife roles affect marriages is they might breed contempt and resentment among both parties. Partners in the marriage might have negative thoughts about each other due to their inability to perform some of their supposed gender roles in the union.

When there’s contempt and resentment in the marriage , there will be more conflicts among them that might be difficult to resolve.

9. Lack of empathy

Gender roles in marriage can also play a pivotal role in how partners empathize with each other. A lack of empathy could set in if no balance dictates how these roles should be handled. Some signs of lack of empathy in relationships include constant criticism, refusal to apologize, narcissism, insecurity, ability to tolerate opinions that don’t match their own, etc.

10. Divorce

In the long run, if care isn’t taken, gender roles in marriage can result in a divorce. When it gets to this point, it means that both partners may have irreconcilable differences, and they have figured out that they might not be able to continue as partners.

The decision to part ways might have also been because none of the partners were willing to compromise regarding how their gender roles affected their marriage.

To learn more about how gender roles affect marriages, check out this fact sheet by the National Healthy Marriage Resource center . This study highlights how gender roles and expectations play a pivotal role in couple interaction, decision-making, and marital satisfaction. 

5 examples of gender roles in marriage

When it comes to gender roles in marriage, they might be different when it comes to personality, behavior, etc. Here are some common examples of how gender roles play out in marriage

1. Men work for money

Regarding the conventional husband role in marriage, it is widely believed that the man should be the one to work for money because he probably has more physical strength. This widespread idea was gotten from the agricultural ages, where men were the ones who worked on farms and vineyards because of their masculine build. 

However, with the changes in time and the influence of technology, many jobs require more mental than physical strength.

2. Women stay at home

One of the common traditional wife roles was that women were supposed to do all the household duties like cooking, washing, shopping, and caring for the children.

However, today, women’s role in marriage has changed as some collaborate with their partners to handle some of the home duties because they have to work.

One of the reasons why these gender roles exist is because it is believed that women are more detailed or thorough when it comes to household matters. The interesting part is there are some industries where men dominate, like the chef industry.

3. Men are protectors

Another common example of gender roles in marriage is that men are protectors because they might be physically and mentally stronger than women. This is one of the reasons why people may rarely expect men to regularly experience a mental breakdown because they are perceived as mentally resilient.

When it comes to the demonstration of protection, it stems from the public show of strength during ancient times. Men were required to undergo some sports, like sparring, wrestling, etc., to show their skills and strengths. Therefore, men were historically regarded as having more physical strength than women.

4. Men may be more disciplinarians

Concerning the gender hierarchy of marriage in the traditional setting, men were regarded as more disciplinarians when caring for children. This is primarily because men are generally viewed as less emotional, which might make it easier for them to handle difficult children.

5. Women might focus less on careers and more on marriage and children

There is a likely chance that more women may prefer to spend time building their marriage and raising their children while their husband works to bring money into the home. This is one of the common gender roles that many homes have adopted. While it might not work for everyone, some couples have come to accept the conventional idea of making their marriage work.

To understand more about the examples of gender roles in marriages, check out this study by Tsoaledi Daniel Thobejane and Janet Khoza. This research study is titled Gender Role Expectations within the institution of Marriage , and it aims to observe the gender roles in marriage and how they are distributed among husbands and wives. 

Effect of mental and physical health of gender roles in marriage

Gender roles in marriage can affect the physical and mental health of partners in different ways. Some possible mental health problems include anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, anxiety, depression, etc.

When it comes to the likely physical health issues associated with gender role problems in marriages, some are mostly linked to stress levels in unhappy couples. These physical health problems include increased blood pressure and cholesterol level, obesity, increased risk of heart disease, etc.

Let’s look at the most asked question related to gender roles in marriage.

What are the common factors that affect marriage?

When a marriage begins, several factors might determine whether the union will succeed. Some of these factors might be under both partners’ control, while some are not.

These factors are gender roles, childcare issues, financial problems, busy work schedules, poor communication, infidelity, sexual differences, beliefs and values, traumatic events, technology, anger, etc.

Reading through this article on gender roles in marriage, you now understand their meaning and how they affect marriage differently. However, it is important to note that gender roles might not work in all marriages depending on the partners’ agreement.

Therefore, having an open and honest conversation with your partner about what might work for your marriage is important. If you need more tips on how to manage gender roles in your marriage so that it does not affect you and your spouse, you can consider going for couples counseling.

In Jean Atkinson’s study titled Gender Roles in Marriage and the Family , you will have a broader perspective on how Gender roles permeate different aspects of family and marital life. You will also understand how men and boys differ from women and girls and how they are likely to approach relationships in general. 

Share this article on

Rachael Pace is a noted relationship writer associated with Marriage.com. She provides inspiration, support, and empowerment in the form of motivational articles and essays. Rachael enjoys studying the evolution of loving partnerships Read more and is passionate about writing on them. She believes that everyone should make room for love in their lives and encourages couples to work on overcoming their challenges together. Read less

Want to have a happier, healthier marriage?

If you feel disconnected or frustrated about the state of your marriage but want to avoid separation and/or divorce, the marriage.com course meant for married couples is an excellent resource to help you overcome the most challenging aspects of being married.

Take Course

Learn More On This Topic

Relationship

By anne duvaux, coach.

By Marriage.com Editorial Team, Relationship & Marriage Advice

By Dain Heer

By Dylan Banks

By Rita Hansen, Licensed Professional Counselor

Mental Health

By Draven Porter

By Calantha Quinlan

You May Also Like

Emotional Intimacy

Approved by angela welch, marriage & family therapist.

Approved By Dionne Eleanor, Coach

Zodiac Signs

By Kelli H, Licensed Clinical Social Worker

Approved By Christiana Njoku, Licensed Professional Counselor

Recent Articles

By Kaida Hollister

By Callen Winslow

Popular Topics On Married Life

Men, Women and Gender Roles in Marriage

Dennis McCallum and Gary DeLashmutt

When two people join their lives together, how do they decide on direction? What if one has habits or tastes that annoy the other? What if their priorities are different? Secular marriages have no clear answer to these questions. Generally, counselors suggest couples should compromise or take turns in decision making. But these solutions don't always work. Spouses wind up saying, "We decided your way last time," and we open a new source of conflict. Then there's this one: "I think this would be a good compromise." "No,  this  would be a compromise!" Similarly, consider how you would feel in this scenario: "We decided my way about which movie to see last night, but now we have to decide your way on which house to buy!"

Both trading-off and compromising may be useful in some situations, but are often problematic. Some decisions won't allow for compromise. Suppose a couple does not agree in which area of town to live. If they compromise, they may end up living in an area they both hate. This is why, in real life we find that the more powerful partner usually compels the weaker to comply with his or her agenda. Powerless partners have to decide how much they are prepared to take. The choice seems to be either slavery, perpetual power struggles or flight. Other couples don't have a clearly more powerful spouse, and may engage in constant wrangling over even the smallest things.

In this illustration, we see two different people, each with their own frame of reference which determines their views, their values, their appetites, etc. Since the frame of references, or life experiences are completely different from one another, they have no basis for resolving differences.

When other people's actions hurt or annoy us, what can we do? When we simply can't get someone close to us to be reasonable, where do we turn? We either try to make the other person change through force or manipulation, or we learn to keep our distance. No wonder modern people have trouble attaining intimacy in relationships!

With Christ, we have an alternative way of life. We are no longer two people trying to get our own way. In a Christian relationship, both partners are concerned with discovering and following God's way.

Here is a basis for closeness.

On one hand, we have a reason for calling on the other person to change based on the will of God. On the other hand, we have an obligation to be willing to change ourselves in accordance with the will of God. Although we could still disagree about what God wants at times,  at least we have some basis  for agreement other than who has the most power. Finally, in Christ we also have a basis for grace in relationships, which means we can forgive negatives in our spouse-something we may do in secular relationships if we judge it to be expedient, but without any other reason.

The paradigm of Christian couples living under the authority of God includes benefits and sacrifices for both partners. Most of the sacrifices are in the area of ego and selfishness. The benefits are in the areas of closeness, the gratification of being used by God, and the joy of loving deeply.

Marriage Roles and Gender

In addition to the general idea of basing a marriage on the will of God, Scripture teaches that the husband should be the spiritual "head" in marriage. What does this mean? Headship is a troubling concept in our day, and we need to understand it in context.

Being the "head" in the biblical sense means the husband is responsible to initiate love and self-sacrifice for the well-being of his wife. 1 It does not mean the husband must be spiritually older than his wife, nor does it give the husband a license to insist on his own way. He is only to call for God's way. However, faithful exegesis of the relevant passages will show that God affirms male leadership in the home.

Remember, leadership in the biblical context is servant leadership . Paul said husbands should "love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." (Ephesians 5:25) This is the kind of leadership Christ demonstrated when he let himself be nailed on a cross for us. Jesus could be very authoritative, but he did not come to selfishly boss people around. He said, "Even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Mark 10:45) When Jesus gives us a directive, it is not because he enjoys controlling us, but because he is concerned for our welfare. He also extends an amazing level of freedom to his followers, allowing us to defy his will and still continue our relationship without rejection. He will discipline us for our good, but he will never reject us. (Hebrews 13:5)

Coming under such self-denying leadership poses no threat to our happiness. A woman who submits to the servant leadership of a mature Christian man should be letting herself in for a life where her husband devotes himself to providing for her needs, protecting her and (yes) directing her at times. A servant leader will not insist on his way in areas where it is not possible to know objectively what God wants. He will call for his wife to follow Christ along with himself, but will graciously allow her to refuse his suggestions often. Like Jesus, he will not compel obedience, but will seek to win it through persuasion and love. The Lord doesn't force us to follow him; he wants us to follow willingly.

Any man who is eager to assume such a role of leadership has probably not grasped what the Lord is saying in this passage. To be responsible for initiating love--for initiating self giving--is a daunting role. Properly understood, no husband would object if his wife offered to lead the way in self-sacrifice for awhile. The role of head in a marriage is not a role of privilege but of responsibility and self-sacrifice.

Our postmodern aversion to authority is incompatible with Christianity, not only because it flies in the face of biblical teaching, but because it is based on our fear of corrupt and self-serving authority figures.

Servant Leadership In Action

Christian men should be spiritually mature enough to secure their wives' respect and basic willingness to follow their leadership, contingent, of course, on the higher authority of God. 2 When the Bible refers to wives submitting to their husbands, it essentially means wives should cultivate an attitude of respect for their husbands. 3 "Respect" in this context includes recognition of her husband as a legitimate leader--an inclination to go along with her husband's direction when possible. A wife who submits to her husband is free to suggest directions or to question and challenge his direction. She is obligated to point out when she believes he is violating God's will. But she would turn away from self-willed resistance or manipulation.

Headship does not  mean that only wives should be willing to defer to their spouses. In fact, willingness to defer to others for Christ's sake is the foundation of  all  relationships in the Body of Christ. The verb "submit" in Ephesians 5:22 is really borrowed from verse 21: "submitting to one another in the fear of (out of respect for) Christ. . . " Therefore, the wife's submission to the husband within Christian marriage is grounded in both  spouses' willingness to defer to each other in love as well as to other Christian friends in their church. 4 We are all to submit to Christ's moral leadership whenever it is expressed through others.

All of this means we should emphatically reject the view that submissive wives let their husbands do all the thinking in the marriage. Neither does it mean that Christian husbands can be bossy and controlling. Biblical headship does not mean that the husband must decide on every matter or even most matters pertaining to the household. Husbands and wives should negotiate and agree on who will take responsibility for bill paying, grocery shopping, car maintenance and other like matters. Creative and critical discussion between spouses about major decisions is  also  fully compatible with the idea of headship. Such discussion is necessary for a healthy marriage. If both spouses are committed to God and to the good of the other, most decisions can and should be mutual, and only the weakest husband would fear such discussions.

In the rare cases in which husband and wife cannot agree on an important decision, the husband who has proven himself as a servant leader will usually be able to make a mature decision--either to hold for his view if necessary, or to sacrificially let his wife have her way.

Like Christ, the Christian husband is to lead the way in demonstrating a humble commitment to God's will rather than insisting on his own will.

Jesus' authority was valid because he did "not seek his own will, but the will of him who sent" him. (John 5:30) He also explained that he was willing to "lay down his life for the sheep." (John 10:15) In the same way, the Christian husband is to lead the way in demonstrating a humble commitment to God's will rather than insisting on his own will. He should take the initiative to practice sacrificial service to meet his wife's needs, even at his own personal expense. Such husbands are usually able to secure their wives' trust and respect.

Both partners in a marriage should understand and agree on their concept of headship before getting married. Christians differ on how they interpret these passages, but however a couple understands them, they need agreement. Those already married may also need to rethink this area. If you are a married woman, are you comfortable responding to the spiritual leadership of your husband? Or is the idea of following your husband unrealistic or distasteful? Recognizing leadership in the home may be especially difficult for women who have experienced evil male authority figures, or who have adopted an ideology that opposes the concept of gender roles. 5 At other times, the husband's way of life makes it difficult for the wife to take his leadership seriously.

Whatever the causes, resolving these issues are important for Christian marriage. Additional reading on the subject of headship may help. 6

1. See Ephesians 5:22-29.

2. Christian wife should never follow morally wrong directives from her husband. The principle of contingent, or conditional obedience is well understood when it comes to secular authorities as in Daniel 2:1-18; Acts 4:19,20; 5:29. Strangely however, some commentators argue that wives should obey their husbands in an uncontingent and unqualified way! The text often used to justify this position is 1 Peter 3:5,6 which refers to Sarah's obedience to Abraham with approval. Based on this passage, it is argued that even when Sarah lied to Pharaoh by saying she was Abraham's sister (and nearly had to commit adultery as a result) she was doing the right thing. However, the passage does not condone this incident, but only commends her attitude. In fact, God will hold individuals responsible for wrong they do, even if they were ordered to do it, as the incident in Acts 4:19,20 demonstrates. Notice also that the incident to which 1 Peter 3 refers involves a sin of omission, not one of commission. The statement in vs. 1 that wives should obey husbands even if they are disobedient to the faith means that the  husband himself  is disobedient, not that his directives are morally wrong.

3. Note that in summing up the spouses' respective roles in Ephesians 5:33, Paul uses the word "respect" to describe the wife's role.

4. The New American Standard Bible has chosen to indicate not only a new sentence in verse 22, but a new paragraph. This, in spite of the fact that verse 22 is a dependent clause sharing the participle "submitting" of verse 21.  The New American Standard Bible , Referenced Version (Lockman Foundation, 1963) p. 300. See correctly the paragraph division in  New International Version of the New Testament , (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1973). However, in our opinion, they still fail to bring home sufficiently the force of the shared action.

5. Scholars have demonstrated that exploitation of women is a dominant theme in church history. However, to respond by holding that submission to anyone is a betrayal of one's own personhood, is throwing out the baby with the bath water. Just because some have abused the concept of male leadership in the home doesn't mean there is no such thing as a sacrificial servant leader.

6. For example, Richard N. Longenecker,  New Testament Social Ethics For Today  (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), pp. 70-93.

Search form

Marriage choices affect gender gaps and inequality, new analysis finds.

(© stock.adobe.com)

Despite achieving gradual progress closing gender gaps in recent decades, women around the world still lag behind men in wages earned. Meanwhile, income inequality has increased — rapidly, in some countries.

To better understand what drives these forces, a new analysis by Yale economist Ilse Lindenlaub and co-authors asks a novel question: How do people’s marriage choices affect the labor market, and ultimately gender wage gaps and income inequality?

“ Who matches with whom on the marriage market impacts how many hours each spouse will devote to their jobs as opposed to household duties,” said Lindenlaub, an assistant professor in the Department of Economics. “In the labor market, employers care about workers’ skills but also how many hours they are willing to work, so labor supply choices have an impact on the labor market match. How households decide to allocate their time is the link between the marriage and the labor market.”

Lindenlaub worked with Yale Ph.D. candidate Paula Calvo and Ana Reynoso ’18 Ph.D., assistant professor of economics at the University of Michigan, to build a model incorporating both the marriage and labor  markets, based on three decisions faced by individuals: whether and whom to marry; how much time to allocate to work as opposed to childcare or housework; and which job to choose. Their analysis suggested that partners with similar education are more likely to work a similar number of hours and share household duties, particularly childcare, more equally than couples with different education levels, where the better-educated spouse is the primary breadwinner — and that these factors can affect gender gaps and income inequality.

A growing body of research examines the link between the labor market and gender earnings gaps, particularly the effects of reduced labor force participation by women. Other areas of research explore the marriage market, including who marries whom and women’s disproportionate role in home production duties (e.g. childcare, cooking, and chores). Until now, however, no analysis had featured both markets in equilibrium, with the households’ labor supply decisions as the link.

The new analysis suggested a key dynamic: whether the time spouses work at home is more productive when both make similar time investments — for example, if children do better when both parents invest equally — had important associations with who marries whom, and the spouses’ decisions over how much to work and which job to choose. When it is more productive for both partners to share household duties, spouses are more likely to have similar education levels, be part of dual-career couples, and share childcare and housework. This reduces gender gaps and inequality within households — reflecting “progressive” marital roles. 

On the contrary, when specialization in household duties is more productive, spouses are more likely to form single-earner households, with greater disparities in education levels and one partner assuming the bulk of household duties, reflecting “traditional” marital roles. This widens gender gaps and inequality within households. Thus, whether household duties are more productive when shared or specialized — which can depend on many factors, such as the availability of modern appliances and the internet, the nature of childcare, or even government policies like paid parental leave — affects gender and household inequality.

Despite finding that sharing household roles can promote gender and income equality within households, the model predicted that it increased inequality between households.

“ With stronger complementarities in home production among spouses, highly educated people increasingly marry other highly educated people, while less-educated people increasingly marry other less-educated people,” Calvo explains. “This reduces gender gaps in labor market outcomes, since similarly educated partners tend to work similar hours compared to couples with big differences in education. But this shift increases inequality between households, since less-educated households earn increasingly lower wages than higher-educated households.”

Lindenlaub, Calvo, and Reynoso then utilized data from the German national household survey to investigate the model’s predictions empirically. The analysis confirmed their hypotheses: German spouses’ household roles had indeed become more complementary over time, alongside the model’s predicted effects on gender gaps and inequality. 

The coauthors’ working paper charts new ground in the family economics literature and has significant real-world implications. Policies affecting who marries whom (e.g. tax policies) or how households allocate time and labor (e.g. parental leave or universal childcare) have the power to mitigate or amplify gender gaps and income inequality — underscoring the need for a better understanding of these spillovers across both markets.

Lindenlaub’s collaboration with current and former students also underscores the central role of student-faculty cooperation at Yale. “It’s a very cooperative partnership — we are all equally invested in the project and complement each other well, which makes it successful,” said Lindenlaub. “At Yale, collaborations like ours happen naturally and frequently.”

In addition to co-authoring the paper, Calvo was able to leverage the research project for her job market paper, and the collaboration was a highlight of her Ph.D. experience. “It is not common to have an economics paper with three female coauthors,” she said. “I learned a lot from Ilse and Ana — not only about how to do research, but also about how to navigate the economics profession, and how to navigate it as a woman.”

Greg Larson is a freelance consultant and writer focused on economics, public policy, and social impact.

• Study reveals gender inequality in telecommuting

Social Sciences

Media Contact

Bess Connolly : [email protected] ,

Study spurs federal action: Consent for intimate medical procedures

PODCAST: Navigating the AI revolution responsibly

Eight writers awarded Yale’s Windham-Campbell Prizes

Yale Library acquires historic video interviews with leading musicians

• Show More Articles

• Featured Essay The Love of God An essay by Sam Storms Read Now
• Faithfulness of God
• Saving Grace
• Adoption by God

Most Popular

• Gender Identity
• Trusting God
• The Holiness of God
• See All Essays

• Conference Media
• Featured Essay Resurrection of Jesus An essay by Benjamin Shaw Read Now
• Death of Christ
• Resurrection of Jesus
• Church and State
• Sovereignty of God
• Faith and Works
• The Carson Center
• The Keller Center
• New City Catechism
• Publications
• Read the Bible

U.S. Edition

• Arts & Culture
• Bible & Theology
• Christian Living
• Current Events
• Faith & Work
• As In Heaven
• Gospelbound
• Post-Christianity?
• TGC Podcast
• You're Not Crazy
• Churches Planting Churches
• Help Me Teach The Bible
• Word Of The Week
• Upcoming Events
• Past Conference Media
• Foundation Documents
• Church Directory
• Global Resourcing
• Donate to TGC

To All The World

The world is a confusing place right now. We believe that faithful proclamation of the gospel is what our hostile and disoriented world needs. Do you believe that too? Help TGC bring biblical wisdom to the confusing issues across the world by making a gift to our international work.

The Roles of Men and Women

Other essays.

Being made in God’s image as male and female is not a matter of one’s own autonomous preferences. Rather, it is a part of God’s beautiful design and plan.

Two primary approaches to understanding the Bible’s teaching regarding the roles of men and women have emerged—egalitarianism and complementarianism. This essay provides an evaluation of both perspectives.

Christian reflection on the Bible’s teaching about men and women reached a new departure in late modernity, especially in the wake of the sexual revolution in the West. Feminism combined with expressive individualism has totally reordered the way many people think about what it means to be male and female. It is common now to think of gender as a social construct with no necessary connection to the body’s organization for reproduction. Modern technologies such as the birth control pill and elective abortion have allowed men and women to think of themselves as “freed” from the social consequences of their own fertility. As a result, feminists have been arguing for freedom from the traditional arrangements of family and home.

Such innovations have presented Christian theology with a new set of challenges to the traditional understanding of scriptural texts dealing with male and female roles. Liberal theology has tended to accommodate the spirit of the age by sidelining the authority of Scripture. But among evangelical theologians who wish to honor the authority of Scripture, two primary approaches to understanding the Bible’s teaching have emerged—egalitarianism and complementarianism.

Egalitarianism

Unlike liberal theology, egalitarianism claims to uphold the authority of Scripture while also embracing a feminist understanding of equality between men and women. Not only do men and women share equally in the divine image, but they also share equally in leadership roles in the church, the home, and beyond: the Bible does not assign leadership in any sphere of life based on gender.

Egalitarians do not deny complementarity between the sexes. They do deny that hierarchy has any role to play in biblical complementarity .

Egalitarians seek to ground their point of view in scriptural teaching and have jettisoned traditional interpretations of key texts in favor of revisionist alternatives. Egalitarian interpretations of Genesis 1–3 argue that male hierarchy is rooted in the fall and not in God’s original good creation. On this account, Genesis 1:26–27 teaches that men and women were created equally in the image of God, and God gives both male and female equally the responsibility to rule over God’s creation. Egalitarian Richard Hess concludes, “There is nothing in this first chapter to suggest anything other than an equality of male and female.” 1 In Genesis 2, egalitarians deny that the order of creation establishes Adam as the leader in the first marriage, and that Eve’s being called “helper” involved a subordinate role. God himself is called a “helper” elsewhere in Scripture (e.g., Gen 49:25; Exod 18:4; Deut 33:7, 26, 29), so the term cannot be interpreted to imply subordination. On this reading, hierarchy appears only after the Fall as a part of God’s curse, “To the woman He said… ‘Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you’” (Gen 3:16). Thus, the man’s rule over the woman is a part of what has gone wrong with the world and that needs to be put right. It is definitely not God’s original intention in creation.

Redemption in Christ aims to remove these oppressive social inequalities. Thus, Galatians 3:28 is a central text for egalitarianism. For in this text, Paul declares, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). Just as the gospel breaks down social hostilities between slave and free, Jew and Gentile, so also it breaks down fallen social hierarchies between male and female.

Egalitarians have pioneered a variety of hermeneutical innovations to explain biblical texts that do not seem to fit their paradigm of equality. For example, the command about wives submitting to their husbands in Ephesians 5:21–22 is really about mutual submission not husbandly authority. Likewise, when Paul says that the husband is the “head” of the wife in Ephesians 5:23 or 1 Corinthians 11:3, the Greek term for “head” means either “source” or “preeminent one,” but it does not mean “authority.” When Paul writes, “I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man” (1Tim 2:12), he means to prohibit women from teaching in a domineering fashion or perhaps teaching with an undelegated authority. But he by no means wishes to say that women cannot teach or exercise authority per se . He simply wants women to engage in teaching and leading in the right way. The words commanding women to “keep silent in the churches” (1Cor 14:34) are most likely not even Paul’s words but were added by a later scribe and can be cast aside. Many egalitarians adopt trajectory hermeneutics, which view the Bible’s apparent restrictions on female leadership not as the final word but as temporary cultural accommodations that we can now safely move beyond.

Through these kinds of readings, egalitarians conclude that men and women are equal before God not only in their image-bearing but also in their respective vocations. 2 God does not assign leadership based on gender, neither in the church nor in the home. All positions of leadership—both formal and informal—are open to women as well as to men.

Complementarianism

The term “Complementarianism” was coined in 1988 to refer to the teaching of the Danvers Statement , which says that while men and women are created equally in the image of God and have equal value and dignity, they nevertheless have different, complementary callings both in marriage and in the church. 3 In marriage, God calls the husband to be the “head” of his wife (1Cor 11:3; Eph 5:23), which requires him to provide self-sacrificial leadership, protection, and provision for his wife and family (Eph. 5:21–33). In the church, although redemption in Christ gives men and women an equal share in the blessings of salvation, some governing and teaching roles are restricted to men. The different callings of men and women in the home and in the church are grounded in God’s good creation design and are not a consequence of sin or the Fall.

Equality in Nature and Redemption

Complementarianism teaches “both equality and beneficial differences” between men and women without the differences cancelling the equality. 4 In what sense does complementarianism teach that women and men are equal? They each individually possess the full imago dei and, accordingly, possess equal value and dignity as divine image-bearers. Danvers says it this way, “Both Adam and Eve were created in God’s image, equal before God as persons . . . .” This follows the scriptural teaching that, “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27). This image-bearing distinguishes human beings from every other creature. Some writers locate the imago dei in male and female relationship, but complementarianism holds that both male and female are each individually created in God’s image. God assigns this dignity to both irrespective of their sexual difference or marital status. They share in this status equally . Because of this, they each individually have an inestimable value and worth. No person—neither male nor female—can claim that some people are “more equal” than others. Male and female have equal value and dignity because they share equally in the divine image. This biblical doctrine of the imago dei is why mere complementarianism eschews any notion of male superiority or female inferiority. As Danvers states, “The Old Testament, as well as the New Testament, manifests the equally high value and dignity which God attached to the roles of both men and women.”

This equality also has implications for God’s redemptive work among his people. The apostle Peter writes that men and women are co-heirs of the grace of life (1Pet 3:7). Likewise, the apostle Paul writes in Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” As Danvers affirms, “Redemption in Christ gives men and women an equal share in the blessings of salvation.” This means that there is no distinction between men and women with respect to the benefits of salvation. According to God’s grace, they share equally in the grace of regeneration, justification, sanctification, indwelling, and every other benefit purchased for us through Christ. There are no second-class citizens in the kingdom of God.

Male and female also share equally in the assignment to rule over God’s creation. God commands male and female to “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it” (Gen 1:28). God addresses this command not only to the man but to the woman as well. That means that the mandate to rule over creation extends to men and women equally. This is not to say that they have no differences whatsoever in extending God’s dominion, but it is to say that God gives the command to both . The reason for this is clear; mankind’s rule will extend by means of multiplying and filling the earth. Thus, man and woman both have a necessary share in the procreation of humans and in the fulfillment of the dominion mandate. Man and woman are each vice-regents in the rule of God over creation. 5

Differences in Design and Calling

God assigns deep and abiding equality between men and women as image-bearers, as co-heirs of the grace of life, and as vice-regents in the creation mandate. Complementarianism insists, however, that this equality does not rule out the differences in design that God gives to both male and female. That is why Danvers says that male and female are “equal before God as persons and distinct in their manhood and womanhood (Gen 1:26–27, 2:18).” Scripture and nature reveal that these differences between male and female are biological, social, and good.

Biological Difference. The foundational biological distinction between male and female is the body’s organization for reproduction. We know this not only from the obvious differences between male and female bodies and how those differences enable procreation, but also from how these basic biological realities are confirmed in Scripture. In Genesis 1:26–28, “male and female” are not social constructs but designate biological realities. God commands the man and woman to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (Gen 1:28). Procreation depends on the biologically different but complementary bodies of the man and the woman. God designs a procreative system that requires two bodies to become one, and he designs for the system of complementary differences to be united only within the covenant of marriage.

Social Difference. Complementarianism teaches that social roles for male and female stem from biological differences. In complementarianism those social differences relate most explicitly to the home and the church. Danvers addresses those two spheres explicitly in Affirmation 6.1–2:

In the family, husbands should forsake harsh or selfish leadership and grow in love and care for their wives; wives should forsake resistance to their husbands’ authority and grow in willing, joyful submission to their husbands’ leadership (Eph 5:21–33; Col 3:18–19; Titus 2:3-5; 1Pet 3:1–7).

In the church, redemption in Christ gives men and women an equal share in the blessings of salvation; nevertheless, some governing and teaching roles within the church are restricted to men (Gal 3:28; 1Cor 11:2–16; 1Tim 2:11–15).

In the home the husband is called to be a loving and sacrificial head, and the wife is to affirm and support that leadership. In the church only biblically qualified men are called to fill certain leadership and teaching roles, and the whole congregation is called to recognize and respect that leadership. Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2:12 are a touchstone for this teaching, for Paul prohibits women from teaching or exercising authority while grounding the prohibition in the order of creation. 6 Although the wider cultural implications of these social differences are not developed at length in Danvers, Danvers does say that “a denial or neglect of these principles will lead to increasingly destructive consequences in our families, our churches, and the culture at large ” (emphasis added). Without spelling out the wider cultural implications, Danvers nevertheless says that there are implications of this teaching that reach beyond the church and the home.

In the modern, secular West, this teaching about the social differences between male and female has been fiercely contested. And yet, scriptural revelation clearly teaches that God himself has woven these differences into his distinct design of male and female. The foundational text on this point is Genesis 2:18–25:

Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” . . . So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

In verse 18, the word “helper” corresponding to Adam designates a social role for Eve within her marriage to Adam—a role that is inextricably linked to her biological sex. As a helper, she must affirm her husband’s leadership in their common vocation of subduing the earth. Adam’s creation before Eve designates a social role within his marriage to Eve—a role that is inextricably linked to his biological sex. He is to be the leader, protector, and provider within this marriage covenant. And these social roles within the covenant of marriage are not only creational realities; they are also commanded in Scripture.

Complementarianism teaches that God intends for a principle of male headship to exist not only in the home but also in the leadership and teaching ministry of the church. The entire congregation should affirm that leadership joyfully and willingly for the glory of God. 7

Good Difference. Even though God’s good design in creation may be marred by the Fall and by sin, God’s good design is not erased by the Fall and by sin. As the apostle Paul writes, “For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer” (1Tim 4:4–5). Adam and Eve are indeed paradigms of difference even after the Fall, and those complementary differences have been pronounced “good” by God, and they are still good today.

Paul wishes to emphasize that his teaching about male-female difference is not something that is good for some people but not for others. It is not merely a cultural construct. It is a part of God’s creation design, and it is the pattern that must prevail in the life of every individual and of every church. Because this is true, God’s image-bearers are obligated to honor the headship norm and to beware of any attempt to denigrate this teaching as a mere cultural construct that can be set aside. Because this teaching derives from the word of God, Christians are duty bound not only to uphold it but also to cherish this teaching.

God created human beings for his glory, and his good purposes for us include our personal and physical design as male and female. Being made in God’s image as male and female is not a matter of one’s own autonomous preferences. Rather, it is a part of God’s beautiful design and plan. Whereas egalitarianism tends to downplay key differences between male and female, complementarianism reflects the biblical teaching that God has designed male and female as both equal and different. They are equal bearers of the divine image, equal partakers in the grace of life, and equal partners in the creation mandate. None of this precious equality diminishes at all the biological and social differences that God has woven into his design of male and female. These beautiful differences are not contradictions but complements. They are a part of God’s magnificent plan to make his glory cover the earth as the waters cover the sea (Isa 11:9; Hab 2:14).

Further Reading

• Anderson, Ryan T. When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment . New York: Encounter Books, 2018.
• Burk, Denny. “Mere Complementarianism.” Eikon 1, no. 2 (2019): 28–42.
• ———. What Is the Meaning of Sex? Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013.
• Fee, Gordon. The First Epistle to the Corinthians . NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014.
• Grudem, Wayne. Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth: An Analysis of More Than 100 Disputed Questions . Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2004.
• ———. “Personal Reflections on the History of CBMW and the State of the Gender Debate.” The Journal for Biblical Manhood & Womanhood 14, no. 1 (2009).
• Grudem, Wayne A. “Should We Move beyond the New Testament to a Better Ethic?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 47, no. 2 (2004): 299–346.
• Köstenberger, Andreas J., and Thomas R. Schreiner. Women in the Church: An Interpretation and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9–15 . 3rd ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016.
• Piper, John, and Wayne Grudem, eds. Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism . Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991.
• Reaoch, Benjamin. Women, Slaves, and the Gender Debate: A Complementarian Response to the Redemptive Movement . Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2012.
• Schreiner, Thomas R. “William J. Webb’s Slaves, Women, & Homosexuals: A Review Article.” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 6, no. 1 (2002): 46–64.

This essay is part of the Concise Theology series. All views expressed in this essay are those of the author. This essay is freely available under Creative Commons License with Attribution-ShareAlike, allowing users to share it in other mediums/formats and adapt/translate the content as long as an attribution link, indication of changes, and the same Creative Commons License applies to that material. If you are interested in translating our content or are interested in joining our community of translators,  please reach out to us .

Gender roles in marriage and the family: a critique and some proposals

• PMID: 12281045
• DOI: 10.1177/019251387008001001

PIP: Our society's knowledge of gender differences and similarities in marriage and the family will remain limited and ambiguous until researchers further study the issues of definition, measurement, sampling, units of analysis, and historical context. Atkinson illustrates the extent to which gender role issues dominate a private area of marriage and family life--division division of housework and child care--and how viewing this and other issues through a gender lens can bring into focus understanding of roles in family life. Finally, she introduces ways of considering gender role issues beyond the individual and dyad to the family as a whole. The mother and father who encourage sex-appropriate behaviors in their children are also the wife and husband whose differences may collide in the kitchen, in the bedroom, and whenever they try to communicate. If gender role issues arise and play out largely within the family, researchers should try to understand how generations interact to perpetuate gender differences, and how they might alter their interactions to minimize them.

• Child Rearing
• Communication
• Developed Countries
• Developing Countries
• Family Characteristics
• Family Relations
• Gender Identity*
• Household Work
• Interpersonal Relations
• North America
• Social Behavior*
• Socioeconomic Factors
• United States
• Women's Rights*

• Newsletters
• Account Activating this button will toggle the display of additional content Account Sign out

Men and Women Live on Two Totally Separate Political Planets Right Now

And one political party is primed to take advantage of that..

It has long been the case that American women are generally more liberal than American men. But among young Americans, this gender gap has widened into an enormous rift: According to recent Gallup polling, there is a 30-point difference between the number of women age 18–30 who self-identify as liberal and the number of men in that demographic who do the same.

That’s largely because young women have gotten much more liberal, while young men have stayed ideologically more consistent—or, according to other analyses, become more conservative and anti-feminist . (Of course, not every person identifies as a man or woman. But gender roles still play a big part in shaping our lives and politics, and in the context of this column, I am focusing mostly on the vast majority of Americans who identify as one or the other.) It’s not happening just here either; the political divide between the sexes is a trend that researchers are observing in some other countries too.

One possible cause of the growing gender gap in the United States: Donald Trump. The former president is a notorious misogynist, and his election in 2016 fueled a massive Women’s March, then the #MeToo movement, a great outpouring of rage coupled with demands for accountability. Women were livid that a man accused of sexual predation many times over was in the White House. They couldn’t take Trump down. But they could certainly start to change the culture of impunity that helped to elevate him.

This newly invigorated feminist movement spurred, as feminist movements inevitably do, a right-wing backlash. A cohort of profoundly misogynistic male influencers, one of whom is currently facing criminal charges in Romania for rape and human trafficking, rose to prominence and captured the attention of young men the world over. Actor Johnny Depp sued his ex-wife Amber Heard after she wrote a #MeToo op-ed in the Washington Post; even though the piece didn’t name him, Depp argued that it was defamatory, and legions of his fans (including plenty of women ) engaged in a monthslong campaign of vicious harassment, threats, and vilification of Heard and anyone who might stand up for her. A number of Republicans at the national and state levels began to imitate Trump’s unapologetic sexism, with one congressman calling Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a “fucking bitch” within earshot of a reporter. (Another tweeted an anime-style video that showed him killing her .) J.D. Vance, now a U.S. senator from Ohio, complained during his campaign, “ We’re effectively run in this country, via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made.”

The message to women was clear: There are a whole lot of men who respond with fury when women speak out.

The conservative attempt to put women back in our collective place has manifested in policy and law too. The Supreme Court, stacked with Trump appointees, overturned Roe v. Wade and stripped the fundamental right to abortion from American women; conservative legislators and activists quickly got to work banning abortion at the state level and are still scheming on a national ban and the myriad ways in which Trump could—should he return to the presidency—use the power of his office to make abortion even more unattainable .

The fact that abortion has proved to be a losing issue for Republicans over and over again has not slowed the anti-abortion movement down. Nor has the GOP counterbalanced it with any targeted outreach to alienated female voters. Even the Republicans who have had to swear up and down that they support in vitro fertilization after the Alabama court effectively banned it in that state have failed to do anything at the national level to protect fertility treatments and are, in some cases , doubling down on these vastly unpopular policies.

It’s almost as if Republicans don’t want female voters—or as if they believe that overt misogyny will better attract male ones. Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida recently made that subtext text when he told Newsmax , “For every Karen we lose, … there’s a Julio and Jamal ready to sign up for the MAGA movement.” In other words, the unhinged machismo of the Republican Party is increasingly attracting Latino and Black men—and so it doesn’t need women.

This harebrained Masculinity First strategy could actually work well for Democrats in the short term. (At least, if strategists like James Carville—who recently said that there are “ too many preachy females ” dominating the culture of the Democrats—don’t get in the way.)

After all, women power American elections: We vote more often than men and volunteer on campaigns and get-out-the-vote efforts in huge numbers. Women also tend to have more friends and a wider web of social connections than men do, offering more opportunities for political persuasion. Women have for decades now outnumbered men on college campuses, and college graduates are both more likely to vote and more likely to vote for Democrats specifically. Men without a college degree are some of the lowest-turnout voters in the country. Highly educated women—a group the GOP seems almost intent on alienating—are among the highest.

One thing that does seem to get men to the ballot box: being married . Among adult American men, husbands are the most likely voters; single men are the least likely. But the GOP’s current strategy may be an own goal here too: As fewer Americans are willing to marry across political lines , conservative men may have a harder and harder time finding spouses, and fewer married men may mean fewer Republican voters.

You’d think Republicans would see the writing on the wall: A base made up of isolated men is not exactly a winning coalition in a more diverse country where the people who actually vote are likely to be married, college-educated, politically and socially engaged, and female.

Democrats must use this to their advantage. Already, angry women have turned up in droves to put Democrats in office. But the party needs more than pro-choice rage to secure a long-term advantage with women. Women need to see that Democrats are a party that works for them: not just to secure them the right to abortion, but to offer basic support in preventing unwanted pregnancies, in sustaining the ones they do want, and in supporting the children that result. Many progressive politicians have pushed for things including paid family leave and universal child care. But so far, these policies—basics in the rest of the developed and wealthy world—feel like faraway dreams for American women.

And these policies don’t have to come at the expense of what the Democratic Party is doing for working-class Americans. Raising the minimum wage, securing more workplace protections, investing in infrastructure projects—these are policies that benefit women, men, and families. Democrats are getting better about talking about these achievements, but they should talk specifically about how women and men benefit from them.

In a larger sense, though, the gender gap is not just a possible advantage for Democrats or a problem for the Republican Party. It’s an issue for everyone.

An ideological gap this wide, drawn along the lines of gender, does not portend long-term national stability. Marriage is declining in the U.S. in part, at least anecdotally , because women, who can now ably provide for themselves, are refusing to pair up with misogynistic men who bring little to the table. This dynamic could leave a lot more single men out there—members of a cohort who are more likely than their female counterparts to be unemployed , financially vulnerable , isolated , and lonely , which in turn can fuel anger and even violence . As young women grow more liberal and young men move right, heterosexual marriage may very well continue to decline, perhaps snowballing political, social, and economic divides .

Conservative commentators see these same trends and a similarly dire future, but many often overtly or implicitly suggest that this is at least somewhat the fault of women for being too selfish or picky. They encourage women to get over ideological divides, to focus on marriage over career , and to marry before procreating—and judge women who wind up attached to troubled or useless men. They generally oppose the feminist social policies and cultural goals that feminists argue benefit men and women alike. In other words, the current gender divide isn’t lost on Republicans, but they’d rather enable deeply dysfunctional male behavior, then blame the women for declining marriage rates than work to bridge the divide (which, to be clear, would mean pressing men to be better and creating the conditions for both sexes to thrive). America’s conservative party keeps pushing the kind of machismo politics that hurt men in the long run and leave the nation more imperiled—and it blames women for not fixing the men the GOP helped to break.

In the short term, the Trumpian right’s rejection of America’s independent daughters in favor of a rhetorical embrace of the country’s disaffected sons may hurt primarily the Republican Party. And it should. But longer term, this growing gender chasm could leave all of us in a less secure, less stable, and less connected nation.

• UN Women HQ

International financial institutions advancing gender equality in Bangladesh

Date: Monday, 1 April 2024

International Women's Day (IWD) 2024 represented a significant moment as the world united under the theme "Invest in Women: Accelerate Progress." In the spirit of this global call to action, three chiefs of missions from international finance institutions working in Bangladesh offered their perspectives on the significance of investing in women to accelerate sustainable development.

EDIMON GINTING

Asian development bank.

How is the Asian Development Bank (ADB) advancing women’s empowerment and financing for gender equality in Bangladesh?

ADB is deeply committed to advancing women’s empowerment and financing for gender equality in Bangladesh through multifaceted strategies. We collaborate closely with the Government of Bangladesh to align our initiatives with national gender equality policies and priorities. Our efforts encompass various sectors, including education, healthcare, finance, and infrastructure development. We prioritize projects that promote women’s economic participation, ensure their inclusion in decision-making processes, and foster gender-responsive policies and practices.

Through targeted financial assistance and technical expertise, ADB supports gender mainstreaming across projects. This entails integrating gender equality considerations into project design, implementation, and monitoring, thereby ensuring impactful outcomes. Additionally, we work with civil society organizations and other stakeholders to enhance the effectiveness and sustainability of our gender-focused interventions. Our goal is to create lasting change by addressing the root causes of gender disparities and promoting inclusive development in Bangladesh.

This year’s IWD theme is ‘Invest in women: accelerate progress’. How is ADB promoting women’s leadership in climate action? What might be opportunities to strengthen gender-responsive climate financing in the current context?

ADB recognizes the pivotal role of women in climate action and is actively promoting their leadership in this crucial area. We support initiatives that empower women to participate in decision-making processes related to climate change adaptation and mitigation. Through capacity-building programs and targeted investments, we aim to enhance women’s skills and knowledge in climate-resilient practices.

ADB is also working towards becoming the regional climate bank, which further emphasizes our commitment to integrating gender considerations into climate finance mechanisms. Opportunities to strengthen gender-responsive climate financing include increasing investment in projects that directly benefit women, such as renewable energy and sustainable agriculture initiatives. ADB can also enhance access to climate finance for women-led businesses and organizations.

Additionally, collaboration with partners and stakeholders is key to developing innovative financing mechanisms that prioritize gender equality and empower women to actively participate in climate action efforts. By leveraging these opportunities, ADB seeks to accelerate progress towards gender-responsive climate financing and ensure a sustainable and inclusive future for all.

International Monetary Fund

How is the International Monetary Fund (IMF) advancing women’s empowerment and financing for gender equality in Bangladesh?

On January 30, 2023, the IMF Executive Board approved a 42-month financial program with Bangladesh. The program includes reforms aimed at creating fiscal space to enable greater social and developmental spending, strengthening the financial sector, and building climate resilience. These are expected to benefit women’s empowerment by supporting increased investment in health, education and infrastructure, expansion of social safety nets, greater financial inclusion, and tackling climate change-related challenges, which often disproportionately affect women.

In its most recent Article IV consultation , the IMF highlighted the large economic losses to Bangladesh from remaining gender gaps in labor force participation and financial inclusion and called attention to the important synergies between policies to address climate change and women’s empowerment. Our analysis also called for a strengthening of Gender Responsive Budgeting practices in Bangladesh to channel public resources more effectively towards the achievement of the country’s gender equality goals.

Bangladesh graduates from a Least Developed Country (LDC) status in 2026, what macroeconomic measures might be required to accelerate progress on gender equality and women’s empowerment?

As Bangladesh graduates from LDC status and endeavors toward reaching upper-middle income status, broader economic inclusion for women becomes indispensable. Stepped up investments in health, education, and infrastructure (transportation, sanitation, childcare) are required to increase women's mobility and reduce domestic work and care burdens. To finance this, Bangladesh needs to expand its tax base, improve tax efficiency, and reduce insufficiently targeted subsidies. Additionally, reforms in the financial sector are needed to ensure an inclusive financial system that attracts private investment and supports both female and male entrepreneurs. Finally, mainstreaming climate mitigation and adaptation policies is vital to ensure development gains, especially for women.

ABDOULAYE SECK

How is the World Bank advancing women’s empowerment and financing for gender equality in Bangladesh?

Bangladesh has realized early on that investing women is a critical economic driver. Women’s empowerment remained central to the country’s development strategy. We collaborate with the government to amplify women's voices, agency, and participation in social and economic activities through our investments and analytical works. This aligns with the World Bank's Gender Strategy and the Country Partnership Framework, addressing diverse challenges that hinder women's empowerment.

In Bangladesh, we have a dedicated Gender and Social Inclusion Platform that ensures each project identify priority gender gaps and integrate specific actions to bridge those. We have implemented Gender sensitized Grievance Mechanisms, mandatory signing of code of conducts, and regular consultation with all project beneficiaries and project staff, leading to positive outcomes in report and managing sexual harassment and gender-based violence. Several of the ongoing projects focus on improving female labor force participation through skilling NEET Youth, women in remote areas and belonging to marginalized groups, utilizing toolkits designed to ensure inclusion of such groups, for example women and girls with disabilities. Our studies explore and pilot innovative solutions to make public spaces safer, including public transport and workplaces. Studies are exploring and piloting ways to make public transport, workplaces, and public spaces safer for women, provisioning for childcare, GBV prevention and response mechanisms, and utilizing technology to bring more women into the formal employment and entrepreneurship.

Close to half a million Rohingya women and girls currently live in the refugee camps in Cox’s Bazar. Gender equality remains an unfinished agenda. In your opinion, what additional measures are needed to advance women’s leadership and address violence and discriminatory norms?

Gender equality efforts face many complexities, especially in situations with strong social norms. This was evident with displaced Rohingya women, many of have faced gender-based violence (GBV) and trauma even before arriving in Bangladesh. Their conservative background made it difficult for them to access support services.

But we are encouraged to see that change is possible within a short period of time with the right set of interventions. The World Bank supported the Health and Gender Support Project (HGSP) to help women and girls in the Rohingya camps and in the host community access to health, nutrition and family planning services as well as address GBV through preventive and response services. This support helped displaced Rohingya women participate in camp activities, study, volunteer work, or benefit from counseling, midwifery, family planning and GBV response services. Prevention efforts and community outreach were used to increase confidence and empower Rohingya women. These initiatives enabled them to see themselves as agents of change within their families and communities, making decisions. This shift in perspective is a stark contrast to their lives in Rakhine. The World Bank and the government are now in discussion about follow up projects, built upon the successful interventions used by HGSP to address widespread GBV, especially intimate partner violence and child marriage in the camps and surrounding host communities.

• ‘One Woman’ – The UN Women song
• Directorate
• Guiding documents
• Report wrongdoing
• Procurement
• Internships
• Facts and Figures
• Creating and Implementing Laws
• Creating Safe Public Spaces
• Preventing Violence against Women
• Raising Awareness and changing social norms
• Essential services for women
• UNiTE Asia Pacific
• Safe and Fair
• Our Resources
• Gender and Climate Change
• Coordination and Leadership
• Capacity Development
• Mainstreaming Gender into Data, Analysis and Advocacy
• Targeted Programming
• Toolkit for UNCT-SWAP Gender Equality Scorecard Assessment and Action Plan Implementation
• Advancement of human rights of LGBTIQ people
• UN Trust Fund to End Violence in Asia-Pacific
• The Fund for Gender Equality
• Economic Opportunity
• Gender Responsive Budgeting
• Migrant Workers in the Asia and the Pacific Region
• Women’s Land & Property Rights
• WE RISE Together
• Industry Disruptor Participant Profiles
• UN Women in Action
• Commission on the Status of Women
• Newsletters
• Resources and Publications
• Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
• CEDAW SEAP Phase II
• Governance Peace and Security
• Women Peace and Cybersecurity
• Preventing Violent Extremism
• Climate Security and Gender
• Women in Policing
• Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding
• Protection and Peacekeeping
• National Action Plans
• Rule of Law and Justice
• Preventing Human Trafficking
• Women, Peace and Security, and COVID-19
• Political Participation of Women
• Women’s Access to Justice
• Programme implementation
• Afghanistan
• Income security, decent work and economic autonomy for women
• Women live a life free of violence
• Governance, national planning and budgeting for gender equality
• About UN Women in Cambodia
• Cook Islands
• Federated States of Micronesia
• Peace, Security, Humanitarian and Resilience
• Womens Political Empowerment and Leadership
• Ending Violence Against Women and Girls
• Women’s Economic Empowerment Programme
• Knowledge Products
• Strengthening Response and Service Provisioning for Gender-Based Violence in Tamil Nadu
• Peace and Security
• Leadership and Participation
• National Planning and Budgeting
• Human Rights
• Economic Empowerment
• UN Coordination
• Result at a Glance
• Data on Women
• Partnerships
• Peace Village
• Promoting Women's Human Rights
• About Indonesia
• Our key thematic priorities
• Where we are and what we do
• About Myanmar
• About UN Women Nepal
• Results at a glance
• Economic Empowerment and Sustainable Livelihood
• Ending Violence Against Women (EVAW)
• Partnership and Coordination
• UN Women Pakistan Flood Appeal
• Women Peace and Security and Humanitarian Action
• Governance and National Planning
• Women's Economic Empowerment
• Ending Violence against Women and Girls
• Intergovernmental Processes
• UN Coordination on Gender Equality
• Results at a Glance
• About UN Women Philippines
• Migration Philippines
• Safe Cities Hackathon
• Safe Cities Quezon City
• News and Events
• Publications
• About UN Women Papua New Guinea
• SANAP WANTAIM
• Market Project
• About UN Women
• Director Jeong Shim Lee
• Republic of the Marshall Islands
• Solomon Islands
• Women Peace and Security
• Women’s Economic Empowerment
• Women’s leadership in governance and decision-making
• Preventing violence against women and girls
• Women, Peace and Security
• Women’s Leadership and Participation in Decision Making
• Ending Violence Against Women and Girls (EVAWG)
• Gender Responsive Disaster Preparedness and Response
• United Nations Joint Programme (UNJP)
• Gender Responsive Planning and Budgeting
• Women in Politics
• CEDAW Implementation in Timor-Leste
• One UN Viet Nam
• Government Partners
• National Women’s Machineries
• Civil Society
• Foundations
• National Committees
• Cindy Sirinya Bishop
• International Financial Institutions
• GenderNet Bootcamp
• 30 for 2030: 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence
• Toolkit: Second Edition of the Youth Guide to End Online Gender-Based Violence
• Toolkit: Youth Guide to End Online Gender-Based Violence
• Media Compact
• Beijing+30 in Asia Pacific
• International Women’s Day 2024
• UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW68)
• UN Women Asia-Pacific at COP 28
• 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence
• In Focus: International Women's Day 2023
• In Focus: UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW67)
• International Day of Rural Women
• International Day of the Girl
• In Focus: UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW66)
• Gender equality matters in COVID-19 response
• Skilling our women and youth for inclusive and green recovery from COVID-19
• International Day of Women and Girls in Science
• "Girls", Not Objects: Youth Talk and Exhibition
• Geneva Peace Week
• Indigenous women
• World Refugee Day
• World Humanitarian Day
• Essential Services Package for Women and Girls Subject to Violence
• Empowering women to conserve our oceans
• Migrant Women and International Migrants Day
• Women refugees and migrants
• Recommit to CEDAW
• Women of Achievement
• Community of Change makers
• Women and the SDGs
• International Youth Day 2023
• Voices of Youth from Asia-Pacific
• Expert's take
• In the words of...
• Media Contacts
• Annual Report
• Generation Equality Forum: Asia-Pacific Regional Journey
• About Beijing+25
• Beijing+25 Asia-Pacific Youth Blog
• Generation Equality Forum in Mexico
• Generation Equality Forum in Paris
• #IAmGenerationEquality challenge
• Generation Equality Forum
• Generation Equality Youth Challenge
• Generation Equality 16 Days of Activism
• HeForShe Advocates in Asia Pacific
• Activities in our region
• #HeForSheAtHome Challenge
• Become a Supporter