Unequal/Unfair Marriages

A few things that bug me about this:

Who is the woman in the video? Is she actually a statistician & data scientist?

Where is this video clipped from? I don’t like how there’s no link to the original video.

It would be nice for her to have cited some sources. Especially when it can be implied that it’s better for women to stay single than be married. There are more ways to be wrong when going against tradition.

On another note, being an individualist, overall the message of the post doesn’t trigger me like it would have years ago. If a goal for someone is to have a successful marriage, then you can maybe look into some of these studies and find out why married women are not as happy, and learn what mistakes not to make as a man. Or what red flags to look out for as a woman, depending on the constraint.

1 Like

Yeah. To clarify, I’m thinking of ideas like good plans mitigate/minimize risks of failure due to external events, ideas around self reliance (which I think I get from CF and Oism) and not depending on other people’s choices (for eg having a good life), etc.

No. Some cooperation is more reasonable to expect than others. eg if you go down the street, is reasonable to expect people cooperate by not doing random acts of violence. There’s also the idea of mutual cooperation or highly asymmetric. Like in relationships cooperation needs to be mutual and is largely symmetric (eg respect each other, share responsibilities in a way that makes sense, both of you wanting to contribute to the relationship and eachother’s lives, etc).

Thanks, this is helpful and yeah it makes sense. I’m going to try approaching things differently and not letting an emotion dictate my reply.

One idea I have, and I’m not sure if this will help, is I might try privately summarizing a post I’ll reply to before replying. In addition to summarizing, also identifying main points vs tangents, maybe also inferring goals assuming good-faith.

1 Like

Yes, I have not been a very good discussion partner, and I’m sorry about that.

I think this was due to two reasons:

  1. topic priority: I thought the original clip’s problems were bigger and more interesting problems, and that talking about 40/80 was a distraction (explained more below). I also saw things in the direction of discussion which I interpreted as similar to discussion tactics that avoid actual issues in favor of distractions (which I think lefties often do, and also I realize this is somewhat tribalist but I think it has some truth).
  2. emotionality: I was somewhat frustrated with the direction and nature of the discussion and was somewhat emotional (also possibly sometimes/partially tribalist). It occurs to me in hindsight that I let these stack and bleed over from one thing to the next, too.

I’d also like to explain my position a bit more which might help get us back on track if you still want to discuss the topic.

40/80 relevance path

I think I should explain how I see 40/80 connected to the topic. One of the discussion problems is that I haven’t been very explicit about this.

  • hypothesis/idea: men get more out of relationships
  • why? could be due to sex-based asymmetries
    • it’s self evident that sex-based asymmetries exist (physiologically, psychologically, etc)
  • if it was due to that, it’s probably connected to evolution
    • evolutionary effect is a good fit in that it’s independent of current culture, slow moving, deeply related to mating behaviors, etc. Has the qualities we need for the claim to generalize well.
  • one reason that could cause such an asymmetry is sexual (self-)selection: men who get more out of relationships probably want them more and have more kids – can be significant if having kids is not likely.
    • 40/80 (or 1:2) explanation provides a simple long term effect that says reproduction is likely for women and at best a 50/50 for men.

So, as connected to the original idea, I think there is a lot of excess capacity in the chain of reasoning. Whether it’s about 40/80 or 33/66 or 1:2 etc isn’t important as it doesn’t really change the chain of reasoning. Even if it’s completely false, so long as there is any period with a context leading to different rates of reproduction we have strong selection pressure, since evolution can work pretty fast in the right conditions. A similar period but where women were less likely to reproduce than men would have different effects because of asymmetries with pregnancy and child rearing.

This doesn’t prove anything like an actual reason that men might get more out of relationships, and maybe I could use this reasoning to support too much (ie it’s a convoluted way of tricking myself into confirmation bias), but I think it’s reasonable and hard to refute. And of course, I think it could easily lead to men generally experiencing more/larger positive effects like a lift in mood while in a relationship compared to women.

All major groups do that, not just lefties.

Okay, I’m going to try to recap and reconnect the posts in this conversation. Hopefully that will keep me on track. Some quotes may be out of order slightly due to how I am organizing my thoughts. If you object to my sequencing, we can discuss that.

I’m going to start with this question I asked:

Here are the examples you gave. The first one is the example that prompted my question, but I think it fits better in this list because you said the list is comparable to your original example:

I think this list is kinda confusing. I do not think most of these examples are particularly comparable, or are good examples of people being more dependent (than average) on external cooperation. I am also skeptical that dependence on external cooperation is a key factor in feminists or lefties describing something as oppression.

I’m not sure how much you agree or disagree with that. When I asked, your answer was a bit confusing.

I asked (typo aside) if you thought your examples were all broadly equivalent, and you said no, but did not elaborate. Your example is then a new scenario, not one of the ones in your list. Which of your examples are or are not equivalent in your view? It’s still a mystery. Even with your new example, you say it is a reasonable expectation, but you do not say if such an expectation is or is not dependent on external cooperation, classifies as oppression, etc.

You bring up some more distinctions here but I’m still unsure how they connect back to the topic. Do you see mutual cooperation as dependent on external cooperation? Do you see asymmetric situations as dependent on external cooperation? I could guess but the terms still seem muddy to me.

Again, I’m not sure exactly how this connects. Guess: self reliance means you don’t need external cooperation. Plans to mitigate risks of failure means you need less external cooperation. So I think this paragraph is saying something like: “Dependence on external cooperation is bad, and it’s good to have strategies to minimize any need for cooperation. This is called self-reliance.”

I do not have a high confidence in that rephrasing, but that’s my best guess right now.

If my guess is right, then a secondary guess would be: you do not actually think that someone who is dependent on external cooperation and fails to secure said cooperation is being oppressed. That must have been a tongue in cheek dig at feminists (I think you did imply that it was.) Presumably you think such a person is doing a bad job at being self-reliant or something like that.

If these guesses are right, I disagree with you. But I’m not sure it makes sense to explore that disagreement since I do not think we even agree on what kinds of things are or are not examples of dependence on external cooperation. So I’m gonna go back to that topic now.

What do you consider to be external cooperation? Is it any form of cooperation between two or more individuals? If so does that mean that 100% of all commerce, traffic, urban development, property rights, and much more are all activities requiring constant external cooperation? Is external cooperation required for any and all amounts of civilization?

Or is external cooperation something going above and beyond a sort of implicit assumed baseline of civilized behavior that you have in mind?

Once we have an answer, how does your definition of external cooperation apply to that list of examples?

I think this is the most important issue in this topic. I’d suggest a45 and others gather then say their thoughts on this.

2 Likes

Questions I have while answering:

What’s marriage? Is there different kinds of marriages or just one? Is there a different dynamics? Is that what makes a marriage?

Why do people in a marriage want it to be equal/fair? Do people settle for unequal marriages?

What do they want in the marriage to be equal/fair? I’m thinking with dealing with their emotions and handling problems. Those problems can be individual or together.

What I think an equal/fair marriage looks like is both partners hear each other out and solve problems together. But im thinking in the CF way of solving problems. i dont even think I’d do that exactly in my relationship/marriage. I do that on my own(kinda)

I think an equal/fair marriage looks like each partner can hold their weight I guess. That and they help each other out. I don’t think they’d have the same strengths in each area. It would be different in different areas and they can help each other out with that.

I don’t know but I think people in equal/fair marriages gotta be good at solving problems somewhat cuz how are they making it fair? Idk the answer to the question well.

I bet unfair marriages are common. I remember @anonymous105 talking about(to paraphrase) how men seek emotional support from their partner. I think that happens often and it may make the marriage unfair. I’m referencing this reply.

I think if either partner brings up that they’re not treated right or being listened to or their feelings aren’t being taken into consideration, then that means there may be a fairness problem in the relationship.

That’s a good question. I wonder how equal/fair marriages look like and then how something atypical is used to avoid them. I wonder why either person would want to avoid the equal/fair marriage. I wonder how unequal/unfair marriages look like.

I hear people often say to put work into the relationship to make it work but how successful are they? How often do people need to put work to avoid the unequal marriage?

Equal/fair marriage, no particular order:

  • matching energies
  • discussion and agreement about responsibilities / maintenance (assuming living together etc)
  • both willing contributors
  • noncoercive and no controlling tendencies
  • both prefer being in the relationship to not

There are some things I didn’t include (like ‘loving’) that I would include as qualities of a good marriage.

I also didn’t want to exclude highly asymmetric situations, like a SAHM/D doesn’t imply unequal or unfair (could go either way depending on the couple). Also if one party is disabled.

How common?

I don’t know.

I don’t think I see many unequal marriages that I could easily identify –

Well, besides the obvious, like when religion is involved: some/most/all Islamic marriages, some Christian marriages, and IDK enough about Hindu, sikh, or other religions (my guess is that they’re not particularly better).

But outside those (which I don’t see much locally), I think most of the marriages I see are pretty fair and reasonable. More broadly it’s hard to say.

Are fair/equal marriages the default?

Hard to say, and I’m a bit short on time now so will have to reply more later.

I think it depends on culture of the couple and how wide we’re talking. In my bubble, yeah I think it’s more common than not to have a fair/equal marriage. The wider you go the worse it gets.

I am counting defacto relationships in that too. If it were only marriages then I think the odds of a fair/equal one go down a bit.

What about on TV? Have you seen some well known TV shows with unfair/unequal marriages? What about with fair/equal marriages?

The particulars can vary a lot. I think @anonymous45 posted a list that I mostly agree with in terms of specifics, but only as examples.

Broadly speaking though I would say that the way equal/fair marriages look similar is largely around their communication, including stuff like cooperation/empathy/consent/support/planning. The specific details can vary wildly. I think anon45 was right to mention asymmetry such as one partner being disabled. I would guess that basically all marriages are going to be asymmetrical in various ways, because people are unique and have different strengths and interests.

Looking at specific concrete details such as “who is doing more chores” is not a very good indicator for a couple reasons: different chores could be more or less costly for different people, there can be many unseen tasks that don’t get properly tallied as chores (sometimes called “emotional labor”), and the breakdown of chores can change drastically over time.

Instead, when considering chores, it should be more like: are both people happy with the chore arrangement? If one person has an issue, can they safely raise that issue and have a productive discussion about it? If they are struggling, can they expect to get help from their partner?

IMO the exact breakdown of tasks within a partnership is largely irrelevant if the above is done correctly. But this also means I may have a harsher view on the next question.

Pretty uncommon. Even people who may superficially have an equal marriage are often failing. Like, they try to have an equitable task distribution but then they often struggle with feelings of resentment, frustration, or other negative emotions around their expected tasks/role. And asking for help, asking to change roles or tasks, etc. is difficult for them. People are afraid to have those discussions because they lead to arguments, or more resentment, or other bad outcomes.

One good sign would be if both people in the relationship are typically proactive about solving problems and getting stuff done. If you ask your partner “what’s for dinner?” it had better be because that partner previously indicated they were implementing a dinner plan tonight. If they didn’t, then why are you asking them? Is it their job to always figure that out? Why aren’t you suggesting a solution you think will work well or something?

Another good sign is if the people in a marriage are comfortable talking about commonly considered “difficult” topics (could be money, or stuff to do with having/raising kids, or long term plans and life events, or medical issues.) Also, if they routinely resolve disagreements in a way where both of them feel that they were heard and their concerns were taken seriously.

The latter. Most marriages are probably unequal/unfair, but a lot of them only in various small ways that are hard for people to identify. And a lot of marriages that are just a bit unfair are probably still above average, positive, worth having, etc. The best those people can reasonably do right now. But still, perhaps, a bit unfair.

For example: Both people think they do approximately equal work, would say as much, and largely believe it.

But the wife does more emotional labor by reminding her husband to do the stuff he committed to, or organizing things in their life to make his tasks easier, or by being supportive of him when his tasks are too much and wearing him down. And the wife knows this subconsciously and feels some resentment and frustration but has no concrete issues to bring up. If she just says she feels uneasy or has some discomfort about their relationship equitability, it will not go well because she has no clear suggestions to fix things, so she holds her tongue so as to not make her husband feel bad with no resolution..

That scenario does not require abuse. The husband could not only be non abusive, he could be basically nice and good. He could be genuinely trying to do a good job and be an equal partner. The problems could be more due to something like assumed gender roles rather than specific individual bad behaviors. Or a mix of both.

Almost all of them are unfair.

It’s been years since I watched it, but offhand I’d guess that the main long term marriages in Parks & Rec are more fair than most. Leslie & Ben especially, but possibly also April & Andy, Ron & Diane, Garry & Gayle.

They’re still flawed people. It’s a sitcom, they have problems for purpose of TV plots and such. But the long term marriages tend to involve people who genuinely support each other and communicate fairly well and do not typically put undue burden on their partners. I think that show is very noteworthy in how those marriages are portrayed compared to a vast majority of other TV shows.

The spouses seem to genuinely grow together, improve, and solve problems together without lots of fighting. “The husband and wife get into a huge argument over X issue” is not a standard plot point. And the spouses match energy well, largely dodging the thing where one spouse is a lazy sloppy ditz and the other spouse has to constantly support them.

I suspect if I rewatched it looking for this specific topic I’d still find inequalities and issues. But the show gets a special mention for being much better than most.

Just wanted to add a couple thoughts to this. The first is that this is somewhat of a theme I’ve noticed with Parks & Rec show creator Mike Schur. He was involved in creating Brooklyn 99 and The Good Place as well. Both of those are good, funny shows in general. But more specifically they also depict relationships & marriages in a nonstandard sitcom way. There are long term relationships that grow over the course of the show and do not have lots of typical sitcom relationship friction thrown into them.

I think the relationships are perhaps less equal than in Parks & Rec, e.g. one of the main relationships in Brooklyn 99 has a classic situation where the woman a highly organized and meticulous while the man is a sloppy ADHD goofball. So that is a bit of a messier example. But even then, their dynamic is pretty good, they still seem to communicate well, and they respect/support each other in a way that is often absent from other on-paper-similar sitcom marriages.

One reason for this might just be a writing choice of Mike Schur. But another possible reason is that these sitcoms are not, primarily, about romantic relationships. Many sitcoms are either focused on the home life of a family, or focused on the social lives of single people. In both of those cases, relationship drama is a reliable and relatable source of plots and friction. So sitcoms will go back to that well over and over.

Parks & Rec, Brooklyn 99, and The Good Place, are all different in that the main point of each show is not the relationships. They are all more like workplace (stretching that definition for The Good Place) sitcoms. The main source of episodic plots, drama, and friction come from the environment and the difficult parts of their job. They typically have external antagonists, or nonhuman situational antagonists (e.g. budget issues in Parks & Rec). That means that having relationships be (by sitcom standards) very stable and healthy does not detract from the writers’ ability to add friction and drama. There is more room for spouses to be supportive and helpful and a source of solutions, because problems are provided by other aspects of the story.

When the premise is “single 20somethings navigate dating” there are less obvious external problems, so it is common to fall back over and over on relationship drama.

That said, I think there are other workplace-focused sitcoms (or other TV shows with a good source of external friction) that do a worse job portraying good relationships than the ones I mentioned here. So my guess is Mike Schur specifically is also a big factor.

This can end up unfair because both people are socialized to expect the woman do more labor. Society normalizes unfairness. There are a lot of women who are unhappy about their husbands not helping enough (but it’s hard to find a better man), but also a lot of women who are content without being treated better.

Some of this parallels with jobs. A lot of people complain about their job while also seeing it as normal and acceptable. A lot of people genuinely dislike their job but struggle to find a good one. There are shortages of good jobs and good husbands which lead to many people lowering their expectations rather than being chronically unhappy.

One thing that’s notable is Andy is a terrible boyfriend to Ann in season 1. They changed his character/personality so much that it’s basically a continuity error.

Also Ron & Tammy is awful.

The Office is about a workplace but has relationship drama.

1 Like

Yeah I agree. I tried to acknowledge that possibility elsewhere in that post, e.g. the example I gave.

I think there are situations where both people are sincerely happy and generally think things are equal but they are not actually equal due to hidden/unrecognized labor.

Yeah true. IMO all of season 1 is basically a continuity error. I recommend people skip it. They change basically everyone, though Andy and Leslie probably change the most. Andy went from awful and scummy and manipulative to well-meaning but dumb, which works fine for a side character. And Leslie went from being well-meaning but dumb to being well-meaning and smart/competent, but just kinda socially awkward and overbearing. She is allowed to have good ideas and goals and succeed at achieving them, though, which is a huge change.

I think in season 2 they gradually change the characters, so the beginning of it is rough as well. End of season 2 is okay, but I know people who skipped straight to season 3 when the new character designs are more cemented and they enjoyed it the whole way through. They went back and tried watching S1/S2 and could not get into it because of how much more obnoxious the characters are.

Yeah, season 1/2 of P&R has a bit as well, like Leslie and the forgettable Mark character who is written off in S2. This makes sense since Parks & Rec was originally designed to be an Office-style cringe comedy and they pivoted because it wasn’t working.

Also it is an ensemble show so they sometimes have relationship drama with less central relationships. Ann has some bad ones, as does Tom, and Ron has bad ex-wives (that’s why I only named him alongside the spouse he gets very late in the show). I’m only advocating the specific ones I mentioned as being pretty good/equal.

I never got into The Office. I watched maybe 1 episode and some random clips online. I don’t like any of the characters. I think for “cringe” comedy shows none of what I said really applies, since the characters are supposed to be bad and stupid and make you uncomfortable, that’s the point. But also maybe a workplace focus is irrelevant, IDK. Not sure why the shows I mentioned are how they are, workplace focus was just a guess.

I have been thinking about it this last week. A lot of the cases that came to mind are ones I didn’t think were great to analyze. Like, relationships in like LOTR[1] or Vinland[2] probably aren’t great examples (though they’re not irrelevant either I guess). I’ve been watching The Pitt recently and was paying attention – both good and bad relationships have been shown, though we only see a narrow slice since the show is written as real time (one season of 15 episodes (each about 1hr long) corresponding to 15 hours of an ER shift). One good relationship shown recently involved a wife at the palliative care stage with a very supportive husband. I thought that was notable but also seems intrinsically unfair. That said, I don’t think looking at a single moment like that is a great way to judge fairness; one of the reasons for relationships IMO is mutual security and a kind of agreement that if one party gets sick, the other will still support them (which goes both ways). If one party reneges on that, then it seems obviously unfair.

I haven’t watched much parks & rec. I did watch some of the office a long time ago.

Other things that came to mind: I watched The Diplomat recently. That has some interesting dynamics but the main character’s marriage is kind of a mess from the start. There is a bit of latent sexism shown, and maybe some non-deliberate sexism from the writers.

I try not to watch a lot of TV these days because I tend to binge it which interferes with life.

If either you or @anonymous105 have more suggestions of popular TV/movies that might help.


  1. Although I did see this asmongold-reacts-to-meme short about LOTR the other day which is maybe worth talking about: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/lPo_l7H07Ho ↩︎

  2. I watched Vinland some months ago but was paying attention to how women were represented at the time. There are some interesting things there I think and my impression is that it doesn’t try to shy away from how things were in like 1000 AD (it’s set around then, like 1013 on). Characters are complex and flawed. I think the viewer (or reader of the manga) is meant to go on the same kind of journey that Thorfinn (main protag) does which starts with violence, anger, injustice, etc in season 1, but becomes a lot more pensive and pacifist in season 2. there are 4 seasons planned (which closely map to manga of the same structure), I think S3 is about gathering others and S4 is about journeying too Vinland (modern day Canada). ↩︎

Thinking about the chores situation and fairness: what about hiring services?

As a baseline case, I assume we all agree that either partner doing all the chores is typically unfair and something like 50/50 is fair (all else being equal + in a modern western society). Also in this case I’m considering a typical marriage situation, like living together, many shared assets/finances, etc.

Say the partners (A & B) agreed on a fair 50/50 split, then B decides to use their own discretionary funds to hire someone to do most of those chores. My impression is that A might have an issue with that, even though I don’t think this violates any particular commonly accepted principle of relationships.[1] I also think that the chance of A having an issue with that would be higher for female-A and male-B than vice versa.

@Elliot and @anonymous105 I suspect you both might disagree with that last part.


  1. Personally I think doing this is mildly uncooperative which is the basis for annoyance. The cooperative way would be to figure out how to reduce chore-load overall so that you can eg spend more time together. Part of being in a relationship should be maximizing the overall relationship rather than one’s own place in a relationship. ↩︎

I would say Aragorn is a good example of positive non-toxic masculinity. That is, he embodies a lot of traditionally masculine traits but he does so in a good way. We could guess that he has a good/fair relationship with Arwen, but we do not really see much of it. I consider him a paragon of positive masculinity for other reasons.

I don’t think the films or books showcase particularly good/equal/fair marriages. I don’t think they show bad/unfair ones either, though. That just isn’t the focus of the story.

Possible exceptions for Frodo & Sam or Legolas & Gimli, if you want to count those.

I saw that subplot differently. Could you go into more detail on how you interpreted it? Like why specifically did you think the husband was very supportive?

Why do you think women would be more likely to object to that than men?

Yeah.

Subplot summary from memory: We have a husband (H) and wife (W), two sons (ages like 8 and 12 or thereabouts), and a long term hospital helper. W has cancer of some form and is already in palliative care but still lives at home. W presents with a fractured ankle or lower leg and the immediate treatment is a boot. However, when it’s time to leave W is unsure about whether she wants to return home. Part of her being discharged is some discussion about impacts on their home life, like installing railings and maybe a shower chair. She is reluctant to impose this on her family and feels that her continued deterioration will only impose more and more. Ultimately, she decides to stay in the hospital and increase her pain medication to the point that she stops breathing. Throughout this, H is kind, accepting, proactive and more than willing to go out of his way to change things to improve W’s quality of life. He is a little reluctant to accept her choice initially but isn’t at all aggressive, condescending, or paternalistic about it (and I think this is perfectly reasonable). The fact she’s increasing her meds in order to end her own life is mostly left as subtext, at least from the dialogue we’re shown. (From memory the most explicit conversation about it is between two doctors, J and McKay)

Reflecting on ‘very’ – I think I said this because the husband is presented as a model husband in the situation (or that’s how it seems to me, at least). He stayed with his wife, still loves her, still affectionate with her, the family is together, is trying to keep W’s quality of life as high as possible, etc.

Also, when I think about being in W’s medical position + what it would mean for a partner to be supportive, I would want those things from my partner. (I also wouldn’t want her to destroy her own life doing it.)

I think men are more likely to accept something that is technically correct rather than go on feelings; in the absence of a reason why it’s wrong, I think men are more likely to concede. I’m excluding superficial concession but still harboring a grudge.

That said, I don’t think this is a universal male trait; it’s not like 90% of men and 50% of women. I think it’s largely cultural. I don’t have an estimate of probabilities.

Also I’m assuming there’s originally an agreement to 50/50 chores, how to weight chores, and no disagreements about it. A motivation for this is to eliminate any actual unfairness or grounds for the common objections like women tolerating higher expectations etc.

One thing I notice in my thinking is that I am aware of reasons why men would still have an issue with it, and I’m assuming there are many men unlike that because I think I’m unlike that. However, when considering why women would or would not have an issue with it, I’m assuming that most will respond in a particular way and will perceive a problem where there is none (or deal with it incorrectly). It’s not that there isn’t a problem, but the problem is that one partner doesn’t feel right about the situation and that problem is one for the relationship rather than the feelings themselves. Maybe I’m biased?

Sorry this is a bit disorganized, hope it makes sense.

I’m assuming there are many men unlike that because I think I’m unlike that

One thing I just noticed, I don’t think this about many qualities. I don’t think there are lots of men with my thoughts or preferences just because I have them.

My self-reflective intuition is that my intuition above (about which sex might be more/less likely to have a problem) is wrong. That might be confusing, I mean that I think my intuitive conclusion should have been uncertainty and not that women are more likely to object.