precisely Today, March 8, the day of the working woman, I have had the lot to a conference in Benalmádena, in the Hall of Elders program at the University of Malaga, which title: The evolutionary process of social interaction. Vs objective relationship. and object-setting roles in the family.
homage to this woman working, I would hang a part of that conference, referring to the process followed by roles in setting the couple in recent times, to share with my friends these findings and personal reflections. Is part of the final third of the conference and aims to be a traffic analysis, from a relationship of total dependence and submission to male a new era of equality, in an open process of debate, although there is a way to go yet to reach it's real and apparent.
homage to this woman working, I would hang a part of that conference, referring to the process followed by roles in setting the couple in recent times, to share with my friends these findings and personal reflections. Is part of the final third of the conference and aims to be a traffic analysis, from a relationship of total dependence and submission to male a new era of equality, in an open process of debate, although there is a way to go yet to reach it's real and apparent.
I would post a picture of 1969, my grandmother, as a tribute to women sufferers of the last century. Note the kitchen few resources, the pitcher and, of course, the absence of ceramic ... Understood that this place had to cook for alimenatar their offspring (if seven children), after returning from field work.
setting roles in the couple
Formerly there was a great functional complementarity between spouses, although we can not deny that was based on an asymmetrical relationship where the man was in power officially and woman was subject to its guidelines. It has a contract of roles or functions. Social norms, though unjust, provided for the conduct of each and dependencies. The truth is that a woman reigned in the house and the man on the street, that is, the government of the family, although it seems otherwise, I had women, while men contributed, in general, the financial resources to support it, without forgetting the contributions of women to work outside the home. Typically, women were superior to man in house ability to support and educate children. Its role nutrient, protective and educator rose to her own husband. Even though the man kept in his house sent him, he used apostille "when it is not my wife." So the woman gave the house functional strength, while her husband kept a certain social prestige in the family.
The fact is that there was a forged ties of interdependence between spouses solidity. This does not mean they were perfect, quite the opposite. The man was a nullity in the housework, no washing, scrubbing, cooking, shopping, sewing, ironing, etc.. since this function was typical of women. It was his office working on the street, make money, protect the good name of his family and face as head of the family, providing the security necessary for the growth of their children. This archaic concept of family dynamics is being diluted as the democratic system prevails and the feminist struggle is nearing its objectives protest gender equality. Until that time
marital breakdown and divorce was virtually non-existent or very low. What would a woman do separately? Was marginalized and socially frowned reviled, with an economy in poor and without resources, on par with the "vulture" sought as easy targets of sexual desires, not being "protected" property of another male. Man apart, generally, was a nullity in the tasks concerning their own care, did not dominate the household work and, if he did, was frowned upon. It was not conceivable a man cooking, washing, washing or ironing ... were "mariconas" own effeminate. Therefore, in the relationship, though there was no love, had a unit that gripped the link. I give, you give me, and if we do not want it does not matter ... "we bear." If you fulfill your mission, but not even talk, everything will be fine. But if you fail, although the home is not living sustainably, we will maintain the relationship to the outside within the norm, with holy resignation, or whatever it is, also "we bear."
sex between the couple, was due more to a physiological need more man-centered, or reproduction, in search of sinful fantasy pleasure, giving a high level of cases of anorgasmia in women. The man used to visit brothels where he sought the most cryptic forms of sexual pleasure through the professional, or kept a mistress in many cases. Anecdotally it is said that an individual asked about the causes that led him to visit those clubs having a woman, replied: "My wife is a woman as God intended and I will not ask me to do those nasty, that's what whores." Many women, knowing these facts justified or consented on the basis of "manhood" of her husband.
those difficult times, in many cases, only the defined role and packaging of each partner, was the guarantor for maintaining a relationship of interdependence. The world of women and man were different. Things one and the other did not mix, had "women's things" and "guy stuff." The field of personal development was not common, so there was no growth flow between them. In other words, usually not given a nutrient ratio in relation to personal development. Communication was mainly on functional aspects, social and family. Tu yours, mine and me to throw the two together forward. The Judeo-Christian set always distinct roles. Also is true that the big bang of that personal development has been recently, so that the evolutionary process in this regard was very poor and the subjects tended to have a short journey in this matter throughout his life. Therefore, the behavioral assumptions that occurred in the marriage contract were sustained over time, thus avoiding the conflicts of personal changes. Arguments like "you're no longer the same" and "you've changed" were missiles in marital discussions as if it meant non-compliance with a contract for life, or what is, was accepted, when they reach the adulthood, evolution, behavior change, beliefs or their own conception of family and social relationships should not evolve into other areas or approaches.
What has changed? In a slow process, studded with difficulties and obstacles, it has developed other relational culture between the couple. The woman has claimed a greater role and has gotten back to work brilliantly. But at home still many outstanding issues, either by the "shirking" of man, either because they do not want to cede the management and organization at the inability of the partner or by the roots of the responsibility of family role unique classic or other causes. In these circumstances we usually find: Woman working and the house has more or less indirect and working man and "help" to the wife under his direction, but lost to the loss or redefinition of the role of husband.
my point of view has come up with something of special importance, as is the equal in the roles and responsibilities of family structure, but above all come both in the field of sustainability, where the agency no longer has much weight specified in the bond of relationship. In a current partner roles they assume are very close, both work, cook, clean, shop, put the washing machine. In short, this state of functional dissociation with different and defined roles, no sense. Therefore, the bond of relationship has ceased to be based on dependence and functional complementarity and has become consolidated by the will to maintain it. The "we hold" does not fit into this framework. When things do not work, when love is gone, when the personal clashes with the intolerance of others, when evolution is divergent and the two become brake ballast or other personal evolution, and when communication as a tool of understanding and approach is broken or not operational, is an open door less traumatic than in the past, because the two are more self-sufficient and able to face a new situation independence. The "we've endured" we turn to "take hold your mother."
But, of course, not everything is so easy. There are other elements that have been brewing over the relationship that are not directly affected, but shared. The children, property, families, friends, influence the relationship and form a mortar that should be considered before any break, the children as a priority, they are a common emotional projection, at the confluence of the emotions of both special transcendence. This explains the exceptional virulence in conflicts where the primary objective of the spouses is harmful to other children being used as a weapon, establishing strategies aimed to make the damage without thinking about the effects that could occur in one's own children, is a painful myopia. The commons are another particularly important, their distribution causes great conflict, it is logical that each intends to maintain maximum economic capacity and preserve objects for personal use. The logic and rationality collides with selfishness and only in the case of mature, they often get a fair deal in the distribution of material goods. Therefore, the assessment of the impact that each of these factors have on the glue that holds it all together, and the possible dilution, determine the feasibility of the separation process.
Finally, we agree that self-reliance, personal development adorned close to maturity, is a guarantee that the relationship established is more objective than objectal, that the relationship is maintained based on wants and feelings, and free The understanding is performed in a more egalitarian, less blackmail and tax. At the same time we demand more respect to our proposals, our desires and project development staff and demand that respect be translated into one's own freedom to carry it out. Individual developments is unquestionable and, of course, can be divergent. Communication and dialogue are part of this tool forge an understanding, an approximation to the path of common development and share in the evolutionary process of both, provided that give an open minded attitude. In this case, understanding the difference must not lead to divergence, but complementary, ie, we are different, allowing us to take a broader view of life, it is important to know how to combine these views, through the process of dialogue and communication, to enrich our ideas and lead to personal growth. The question is whether we can establish that dialogue, that effective communication, if we have broken away from the drag of the roles of the past and if we have introjected new ways of breaking the classic understanding of agency or asymmetric situations in gender relations. Otherwise, to represent a drag either spouse, is passed to "you hold your mother."
0 comments:
Post a Comment