Tzarich Iyun > “Seder Iyun”: Deliberations > The Lost Joy of Receiving > “She is Your Friend”: Reciprocity and Difference in Marriage

“She is Your Friend”: Reciprocity and Difference in Marriage

Response Article To "The Lost Joy of Receiving"

There are two dimensions in a couple’s relationship. In one, the essential division between man and woman plays a central role, while in the other, a relationship based on mutual friendship develops. An understanding of this breakdown could solve both the ideological confusion and the personal tensions of couples in our day.

Nissan 5781; March 2021

“We are not first people and only then male or female, but from the very beginning man is man and woman is woman,” I recently told a friend, who decried the outsized influence of the best-seller “Men Are from Mars and Women Are from Venus” on marital counselors in Charedi society. He disagreed, telling me that such beliefs are outdated. Today, he explained, we know that men and women are nurtured to develop in certain ways. Society shapes feminine and masculine images in our minds, while in truth there is no fundamental difference between the sexes.

My friend’s words represent the position, espoused first by radical feminism and later by mainstream media, whereby there is no inherent difference between men and women. Based on this approach, a woman is not born a woman but is taught to be so (when dressed in pink and given a doll during her childhood). On the other end of the spectrum lies the traditional approach, which distinguishes between men and women and argues for their fundamental difference; men and women have inherently different roles to play, and there is no point trying to make them equal.

Thankfully, the Charedi community is not generally as progressive as my friend. It still believes that men should be men and women should be women. However, the fact that women have become the main providers in many Charedi households undermines the traditional delineation of roles.

Thankfully, the Charedi community is not generally as progressive as my friend. It still believes that men should be men and women should be women. However, the fact that women have become the main providers in many Charedi households undermines the traditional delineation of roles. Many fear this change will also threaten traditional relationships and the strength of the Jewish home. This fear lies at the heart of Mrs. Pfeffer’s article, which warns of the woman becoming the “giver” rather than the “receiver.”

Mrs. Pfeffer proposes dealing with this threat by changing the female mindset, allowing women to see themselves as receivers despite this reversal of traditional roles. Indeed, it seems that one way or another, the Charedi public is coping with this change by means of a mental transformation. A similar approach argues that the traditional roles of men and women remain in place, while the woman’s breadwinning position is (somewhat artificially) framed as “helping her husband” and his household chores as “helping his wife.”

There may be men and women who would be helped by such changes in mindset. But in my view, it remains highly uncomfortable to live for long years feeling that you are not doing your real job but only “helping” the other spouse to do his or her’s. In this article, I thus wish to propose another approach to resolve the contradiction between the traditional essentialist approach, anchored in Jewish sources, and the reality of our own lives.

In my view, there are “two laws” regarding a relationship, two dimensions of the connection between man and woman: a couple’s marital relationship, in which the essential division plays a central role, and a more reciprocal relationship which is more like other friendships. We find this breakdown in Malachi: “And she is your friend and the wife of your covenant.” The woman is both her husband’s friend and the wife of his covenant.

As opposed to the dimension of “man and woman” that does not change over the generations, the dimension of friendship does change and update itself. I will explain these two dimensions and their practical implications below.

 

Man and Woman: Nice to Meet You

The central characteristic of marriage is unquestionably the relationship between man and woman as such: the relationship between two fundamentally different sexes, each of which plays a different role in the relationship.

How can we accurately define the character of men and of women? Here’s a simple proposal: Instead of trying to “scientifically” answer this question, let’s limit the issue to relationships. There is no need to be so insistent as to forcibly attribute traits to men and women that they refuse to accept. Instead, we will ask each spouse what they want to see in their life partner.

If we ask a woman what she searches for in a man, she will usually mention strength, intelligence, assertiveness, and leadership. If we ask a man what he wants in a woman, he will often mention gentleness, sensitivity, understanding, and acceptance. She wants him to be a man, he wants her to be a woman. We could go on and say that what the woman calls manly doesn’t really belong to the man, and vice versa. But either way, these are the expectations—and who are we to interfere?

Perhaps someone will raise the following argument: When you say that men are intelligent and women emotional, you are implicitly making a statement that women’s intellectual abilities are weak relative to men, while the truth is that women are no less cognitively skilled!

Why should we conflate between expectations and reality? Of course, men are emotional (and cry) and women are intelligent (and opinionated); yet, the expectations of the two sides are based on the uniqueness each side brings to the relationship

My response to this is: Why should we conflate between expectations and reality? Of course, men are emotional (and cry) and women are intelligent (and opinionated); yet, the expectations of the two sides are based on the uniqueness each side brings to the relationship. A woman expects her husband to react coolly to situations and employ mind over matter. She would be bothered if he broke out in tears when dealing with a complex situation or stood before as needy and incompetent. A man, by contrast, expects his wife to behave softly and gracefully. He would have a problem if she behaved in too rough a manner, or if she did not make the effort to look put together. Of course, when decisions are made, whether small and day-to-day or major and life-changing, intellect and emotion work together for both sexes, but each brings different strengths to the table.

 

Friendship Between the Couple

It seems that in the past, the dimension of “man and woman” occupied most of the space in the relationship. Men were people of the world and women were housekeepers raising children. The prominent differences in daily roles created a deep gap between men and women, so that communication between the sexes was mostly limited to male-female relations. Today, there is no longer a great difference between men and women in terms of occupation. They both work the same jobs and perform almost the same tasks, whether at home or in public. This is also true of the Torah-observant public, which maintains a strong separation between the sexes. Given this new reality, the friendship aspect within the relationship has far more room to blossom.

There are no roles in friendship. Both friends enjoy the closeness itself, and they do not test or judge one another, enjoying rather the simplicity of each other’s company. The male-female dimension of a couple involves greater tension since each must occupy his own role and fulfill it, discharging his or her duty within the marital bond. There is something powerful and overwhelming in this non-mutual relationship: man must be man and woman must be woman, and the very tension between them is what strengthens the relationship. A dream is realized: she wanted a man, while he wanted a woman. The far from easy combination of their different traits allows them to form a home.

A couple experiencing difficulties sometimes raises the “why can’t we just be friends” argument. Yet, this attitude cannot work. Friendship is a convenient relationship which lacks the mutual obligation to maintain a home and raise children, and which lacks the tension that inspires creativity. Friendship can therefore work for a couple, but not for a family. On the other hand, a marriage that lacks the dimension of friendship is characterized by deficient communication and emotional distance.

The combination of the two dimensions of the couple’s relationship works wonders. The ability to maneuver between a friendship-based relationship, in which the two are friends in every sense of the word, and one in which each takes up a distinct role in an operational family, is the perfect recipe for a true relationship, a home containing love and fraternity.

The fact that both men and women share household responsibilities and making an income expresses the friendship between them. In our day, running the house is a sphere in which the friendship dimension reigns, since within it there are no fundamental differences between the spouses—they are much like roommates in an apartment running the household together.

It seems that the latter dimension does not change over time: man plays the role of man and woman the role of woman. By contrast, there is no reason to think that the friendship dimension has a fixed unchanging formula. Friendship varies by nature from couple to couple, and its expressions certainly do not remain fixed throughout the generations, or even over the years for a single couple.

The fact that both men and women share household responsibilities and making an income expresses the friendship between them. In our day, running the house is a sphere in which the friendship dimension reigns, since within it there are no fundamental differences between the spouses—they are much like roommates in an apartment running the household together.

Alongside this, so long as the dynamic of man and woman is maintained at the deeper level, a true change has not occurred in the home. All that has happened in our generation is that the friendship aspect of marriage plays a more significant role in the relationship. But to the extent that it does not erase the essentialist dimension of the relationship and does not reduce the healthy tension between man and woman, we should not fear for the stability of the home, even if the woman provides and the man cares for the kids.

 

Consequences of Two Relational Dimensions

Here are some examples of how two relational dimensions work on the ground.

In daily life, it is the way for women to share their experiences and frustrations with their husbands (he also has them, but he tends to repress them). Sometimes it is right to be a friend, listening and involved, without taking any sort of position. Sometimes, however, it is better to “be a man”—cool and calculated, providing advice from a different perspective. From the female angle, sometimes the wife needs to be a pleasant and supportive friend, and sometimes she is expected to “be a woman”—feeling, compassionate and understanding.

When tensions rise between the two and they seek a way forward, there is sometimes a need to strengthen the friendship relationship and stoke the flames of simple love between them. On other occasions, though, the duality needs strengthening: the woman needs to be feminine and longing, and the man needs to be male and strong, and it is this emphasis that will get the relationship back on track.

The recognition of the two relational dimensions allows the connection between the couple to prosper over the years. The “true professionals” will also become skilled at the art of changing hats, a skill that allows man to switch from “friend hat” to “man hat” just in time

Even in the physical context, in which the need for man to act manly and woman womanly is most stressed, the dimension of friendship enhances the mutual closeness, enriching it and creating a natural variety.

The recognition of the two relational dimensions allows the connection between the couple to prosper over the years. The “true professionals” will also become skilled at the art of changing hats, a skill that allows man to switch from “friend hat” to “man hat” just in time. When it comes to certain subjects and circumstances he functions as an equal friend, while upon a change in circumstances he moves, with perfect timing, to the role of the man.

 

We Should Not Fear Essential Differences

It seems of late that marriage counselors who wish to be considered progressive avoid speaking of the woman’s expectations from the man and vice versa. Yet, this very avoidance can harm the core of the relationship. Professionals in the marriage field, familiar as they are with the relationship processes, must raise the different characteristics of men and women. Exceptions exist, of course, but they only prove the rule. From my experience, it is often enough to say “that’s just how it is”—this is how men are, and this is how women are—to significantly relieve the pain of a frustrated couple.

A woman’s sensitivity has virtues in all walks of life, especially in the home: in her conduct with her husband and in raising the children. And when the feminine sensitivity has the need for male intellectualism, the dependency itself will contribute to the health and strength of the relationship

When the aim of distinguishing between men and women is improving the relationship, we can and should speak of essentialist characteristics, rather than fear to highlight each side’s weaknesses. The Creator arranged one weakness to be complemented by the other’s strength, and we should not be afraid to acknowledge this. Moreover, a division according to sex does not imply character traits that are weak by definition; the strengthening of one force within the soul will always come at the expense of another. A woman’s sensitivity has virtues in all walks of life, especially in the home: in her conduct with her husband and in raising the children. And when the feminine sensitivity has the need for male intellectualism, the dependency itself will contribute to the health and strength of the relationship. The “weakness” of the woman, as Mrs. Pfeffer noted, allows the man an opportunity to give and enabling her to receive.

Based on this formula, which divides marriage into two separate dimensions, the essentialist definition distinguishing between the male and female souls becomes easier to swallow, even today. It is possible to feel comfortable being a man or a woman, while still allowing room for the friendly, mutual dimension, in which the difference between the sexes is not clearly expressed. Each couple will find the appropriate balance between the two dimensions, without either suppressing the male and female figures or denying or the realities of today’s life. Given the right balance, which Charedi couples need no less and no more than any other couples, marital life can be truly beautiful.

 

Write a Comment

Please write down your comment
Name field is required
Please fill email