Gendering of care and care inequalities in couple therapy

Abstract

Reciprocal partner or spousal caregiving in romantic relationships has been identified as a key determinant of the quality of couple relationships. In this article, we interrogate this premise concerning the presumed reciprocity of caregiving in romantic relationships, focusing on cisgender heterosexual relationships and offering implications for relationships of all genders and sexualities. Looking beyond the conventional focus on individual or dyadic processes, we theorize imbalances in care as gendered. Feminists have repeatedly critiqued gender ideology that devalues caring labor and allocates it to women. Gendered power dynamics can lead to imbalances in care‐seeking and care provision. We discuss how the gendering of care and care inequalities can manifest in couple therapy, illustrating with examples from recorded interactions. Implications for therapy practice are discussed.

The third shift: Addressing emotion work in couple therapy

“…Our exploration of emotion work builds on and extends social justice scholarship in couple and family therapy, including both earlier studies (e.g., Carter & Peters, 1997; Goldner, 1985; Hare‐Mustin & Marecek, 1988) and more recent contributions (e.g., Almeida & Tubbs, 2020; Capozzi, 2022; Knudson‐Martin et al, 2021; McDowell et al, 2023; McGoldrick & Hardy, 2019). We particularly draw on works that explore sociocultural dimensions of emotions in couple relationships (e.g., Fishbane, 2023; Knudson‐Martin et al, 2021; McDowell et al, 2023; Smoliak, LaMarre, et al, 2022; Smoliak, Rice, et al, 2022). In their recent papers, Smoliak and colleagues discussed the political dimensions of men's emotional vulnerability (Smoliak, LaMarre, et al, 2022) and the gendering of care in couple therapy (Smoliak, Rice, et al, 2022).…”

“…We particularly draw on works that explore sociocultural dimensions of emotions in couple relationships (e.g., Fishbane, 2023; Knudson‐Martin et al, 2021; McDowell et al, 2023; Smoliak, LaMarre, et al, 2022; Smoliak, Rice, et al, 2022). In their recent papers, Smoliak and colleagues discussed the political dimensions of men's emotional vulnerability (Smoliak, LaMarre, et al, 2022) and the gendering of care in couple therapy (Smoliak, Rice, et al, 2022). Knudson‐Martin and colleagues developed Socio‐Emotional Relationship Therapy focused on addressing gendered and other norms and power dynamics that hinder emotional vulnerability and responsiveness, including cultural messages regarding women being emotional “experts” or responsible for caring and maintaining relationships (e.g., Knudson‐Martin et al, 2021).…”

“…In this body of scholarship, care is (a) labor (e.g., feeding, cleaning, managing others' emotions) and (b) an expression of care/relational ethics (Held, 2006; Smoliak, Rice, et al, 2022). Emotions are seen as central in morality or as underlying and driving moral action and caring for others often involves emotional and relational dimensions (Noddings, 2015; Tronto, 1993; Tronto & Fisher, 1990).…”

“…To develop our analysis, we also draw on feminist care ethics scholarship (e.g., Daniels, 1987; Dean et al, 2022; DeVault, 1999, 2011; Kolehmainen & Juvonen, 2018; Lynch, 2020; Oksala, 2016; Weeks, 2007). The paper is also informed by work on gender in couple therapy (e.g., Knudson‐Martin et al, 2021; McDowell et al, 2023; Smoliak, Rice, et al, 2022). For example, Smoliak and colleagues discussed the political dimensions of men's emotional vulnerability (Smoliak, LaMarre, et al, 2022) and the gendering of care in couple therapy (Smoliak, Rice, et al, 2022).…”

Partner empathy in couple therapy: A discovery-phase task analytic study.

“…Through this process, the person empathizing risks consuming the other's suffering and making it their own, thus failing to come to know them, and decontextualizing and depolitizing the injustice they have experienced. We explore the structural, sociocultural, and historical dimensions of our model of partner empathy in another article (Smoliak et al, 2023). Here, we acknowledge the existence of critiques of empathy.…”