A bit slow here as I finally read the WHOLE thing! It reminds me of an article we read years ago in an RV magazine when we had an RV. It was about "pink" and "blue" roles. Pink roles were typically cooking, cleaning and laundry. Blue roles were dumping and rinsing the tanks, filling water and mechanical things. It was a great illustration of the fact that there is nothing wrong with typical sex roles; you do what works for everyone.
Once again Mark you nail it. Do you see couples in your practice? I do, or did, I had to give it up because it just became too frustrating (and maybe I just wasn't that good at it!) due primarily to what you write here.
Your sentence, "In most cases, though, expectations based on traditional sex roles lead to clarity and an elimination of confusion in day-to-day interactions, so that mental energy can be redirected to the relational experience of the moment" of course makes me go to archetypal systems. "Traditional roles" to me is purely archetypal roles. And yes, you can deviate from these million year old patterns of behaviour and expectation, but you must be thoroughly conscious. Otherwise they are like a splinter you don't know you have, embedded in your foot (or anywhere else.)
You mention something akin to "assigning chores" at a "partnership meeting" to be certain there is clarity in expectation. Do you know how many people do NOT do any sort of this type of discussion with their partner? I would say in my couple's therapy experience it is close to 100%. That is astounding to me...and couples that just follow the "traditional roles" and are happy with them (following the energy and force of the archetypes) are the happiest. The culture, as we know, has twisted all of this up to make traditional (archetypal) roles to be wrong and thus are patently rejected.
I liked your sentence, "A man's role is to prepare to protect, and a woman's role is to be available to receive." Very well put. I would again (like a broken record) say this is the archetypal role, and is essentially foundational. It will always be there. You can adjust your behaviour to go a different path, but typically it is difficult, conflicting, and goes "against the grain." It IS possible if absolutely required (say in a situation with a single mother raising three kids) but it must be as conscious as possible.
A bit slow here as I finally read the WHOLE thing! It reminds me of an article we read years ago in an RV magazine when we had an RV. It was about "pink" and "blue" roles. Pink roles were typically cooking, cleaning and laundry. Blue roles were dumping and rinsing the tanks, filling water and mechanical things. It was a great illustration of the fact that there is nothing wrong with typical sex roles; you do what works for everyone.
Once again Mark you nail it. Do you see couples in your practice? I do, or did, I had to give it up because it just became too frustrating (and maybe I just wasn't that good at it!) due primarily to what you write here.
Your sentence, "In most cases, though, expectations based on traditional sex roles lead to clarity and an elimination of confusion in day-to-day interactions, so that mental energy can be redirected to the relational experience of the moment" of course makes me go to archetypal systems. "Traditional roles" to me is purely archetypal roles. And yes, you can deviate from these million year old patterns of behaviour and expectation, but you must be thoroughly conscious. Otherwise they are like a splinter you don't know you have, embedded in your foot (or anywhere else.)
You mention something akin to "assigning chores" at a "partnership meeting" to be certain there is clarity in expectation. Do you know how many people do NOT do any sort of this type of discussion with their partner? I would say in my couple's therapy experience it is close to 100%. That is astounding to me...and couples that just follow the "traditional roles" and are happy with them (following the energy and force of the archetypes) are the happiest. The culture, as we know, has twisted all of this up to make traditional (archetypal) roles to be wrong and thus are patently rejected.
I liked your sentence, "A man's role is to prepare to protect, and a woman's role is to be available to receive." Very well put. I would again (like a broken record) say this is the archetypal role, and is essentially foundational. It will always be there. You can adjust your behaviour to go a different path, but typically it is difficult, conflicting, and goes "against the grain." It IS possible if absolutely required (say in a situation with a single mother raising three kids) but it must be as conscious as possible.