By Charlotte Faircloth
and Katherine Twamley
The topics of gender, equality and intimacy were selected as
the basis for a workshop based on our own interest, and from our observation
that recent scholarship has begun to unpack their intersections, particularly
in the context of personal life (Jamieson 1998, Smart 2007, Gabb 2008).
One conclusion of this work has been that, while some theorists predicted a
straightforward correlation between greater ‘equality’ between men and women,
and enhanced intimacy in personal relationships (see, for example Giddens 1992, Beck and Beck-Gernsheim 1995), this has not necessarily
been the case. Instead, empirically grounded work has revealed the three
concepts of gender, intimacy and equality to be ‘uncomfortable bedfellows’. An
important trend in this work, then, has been to explore the clash between
‘ideal’ relationships promoted by policy, expert and self-help literature, on
the one hand, and the pragmatics of family life, on the other (Gillies 2009, Jensen and Tyler 2013)
In April 2014, we – the editors of this new special section
of SRO – convened an event at the IOE in London entitled ‘Gender,
Equality and Intimacy: (Un)comfortable bedfellows?’ This workshop was set up to explore further how such
connections between equality and intimacy are experienced by men, women and
families. At the workshop we aimed to create a dialogue between
junior and senior researchers, with presenters pre-submitting papers on new and
emerging empirical research, whilst respondents reflected on the papers’
theoretical contributions to the field.
Drawing on very different empirical examples, the authors in
this resulting special section explore how discourses of appropriate sexual
intimacy shape the personal lives of men and women, and focus on two themes in
particular:
Representing
sexuality
The first three papers examine representations of sexuality
in sex advice literature and ‘communities’, and the ways that these exert
influence on individuals’ experiences of intimacy in particularly gendered
ways. Introducing these papers, Professor Ros Gill noted that the pieces are
very ‘brave, difficult and challenging pieces of research’, which all, in
different ways, reject the optimistic treatise of the transformation of
intimacy school. They all also look at notions of mediation and story-telling
in intimate narratives, which intersect with gendered power relationships in
important ways.
The first paper, from van Hooff, for example, explores
married women’s experiences of sex as these relate to idealised images of the
couple relationship; the paper problematizes what van Hooff calls (after
Jackson) ‘everyday, mundane, conventional sexual lives’ (Jackson 2008: 34). This paper explores the considerable gaps
between aspiration and experience for many of her participants, a theme picked
up by Woodiwiss, who looks at women’s responses to what she calls a narrative
of ‘compulsory sexuality’ in self-help literature. Both these papers focus on the ways in which
cultural narratives around appropriate (hetero)sexuality impact on understanding
of self and intimate relationships. These narratives around gender appropriate
sexuality form the subject of the third article by O’Neill, who looks in
particular at the commercialisation of intimacy through a study of men in the
‘seduction community’ in London. This is both a chilling and fascinating
case-study into an increasingly ‘mediated’ intimacy. O’Neill argues that the
seduction community can be seen as ‘of a neoliberal sensibility or rationality
to the domain of personal and intimate life’ (p8). The implications of
O’Neill’s analysis, in terms of gender equality, are bleak: the men view women
as objects to attain - women who are ‘consumed’ and paraded as markers of
status.
All three papers show how discourses of ‘normal’ sexual
behaviour are governing the lives of men and women. ‘Good housekeeping has now
been replaced by “good sex-making”’ (Hawkes 1996:121) as Van Hooff comments (p9).
Discussing the papers, Dr Meg John Barker noted that as
someone who tries to both write, and criticise ‘self-help’ literature, these
papers were particularly useful in thinking about the way in which we treat
both ourselves (and others) as objects. Barker also commented on the
relationship between emotional and sexual intimacy, noting that in all papers,
these different kinds of intimacy were conceptually separated, while in ‘real
life’ they tend to be conflated.
Sexuality and parenting
The
second three papers look at sexuality and intimacy in the context of parenting.
Commenting
on this, Dr Esther Dermott noted that the reason parenting raises questions of
gender equality is because it’s the organisation of parenting tasks and
responsibilities which seems to be the stumbling block, time and again, for
gender equality. Whilst transformations have happened in the realm of paid
work, this has not been matched in the domestic sphere. Similarly, the
suggestion that the transformation of fatherhood is the answer to this problem does
not seem to be the case – instead, research shows that ‘intimate’ fatherhood might
mean ‘new-ness’ without necessarily transforming gender relations. Rather than
continuing with this line of analysis, however, she noted that the papers here take
the focus off fatherhood, and refreshingly look at gender equality in parenting
through different lenses.
For
example, Layne’s paper uses the case study of a ‘single mother by choice’
showing the uncomfortable relationship between parenting culture and the couple
relationship as traditionally defined. Layne’s research participant, Carmen,
happily avoids the compromises involved in a marriage. She wonders whether
marital intimacy is laden with negotiation around household labour and intimate
exchanges. Like Van Hoof’s participants who are in relationships, she expects
men to want to have sex more often than women and is reticent to enter into a
relationship where having sex, even when not wanting to, may be ‘part of the
deal’. Carmen’s intensive approach to parenting, whether in part caused by lack
of a romantic partner, also prohibits making more intimate adult connections.
Faircloth,
by contrast, explores how couples manage transitions around intimacy as they
become parents, looking in particular at the tensions between an ‘intensive’
parenting culture and a strong emphasis within the couple on the importance of
sex and intimacy. By taking into account the policy context shaping parents’
lives, especially their division of care, Faircloth explores the role of the
state in shaping the intimate lives of parents. Morris pursues the same themes
but through work with single mothers, showcasing the competing accountabilities
single mothers feel they must accommodate in order to avoid charges of
deviance. Gender inequality pushed them out of relationships, but also left
them vulnerable once out of them, economically, socially and emotionally.
What becomes apparent cross
both sets of papers, are the ways in which men and women are increasingly treating their
intimate lives as projects of improvement and individual endeavor, which
Professor Gill referred to as the ‘toxic individualization of intimacy’.
Brought together, the six
articles from the special section unpack the ways that enduring gendered
discourses, whether ‘mediated’ through policy, social discourse or self-help
literature, shape intimate life, and the ways in which individuals attempt to
make sense of these in their narratives and intimate practices. Far from being
a straightforward correlation between greater gender equality and intimacy, a
look at shifting sexual practices across a range of settings shows that this
relationship appears to be more fraught than ever.
