The problem of gender in family therapy theory.

The field of family therapy is now a continuous process like a car cruising on automatic control with the driver comfortably in the lotus position. Family therapy theory rests on normative concepts of the traditional family and idealized conceptions of family relationships. Inequalities in the family associated with gender have been regarded as of little importance to the development of macro theory in the field. The two most influential therapeutic models, psychodynamic and systemic approaches, are each marked by gender bias. The alpha prejudice of psychodynamic theories exaggerates gender differences; the beta prejudice of systemic approaches ignores them. The construction of gender role concepts has led to a false dichotomy, whether supported by traditionalists or feminists. On close examination, gender role ideals turn out to be simplifications and caricatures. The uncritical use of gender role concepts supports power differences between men and women and ignores the complexities and commonalities of human experience. The failure of family therapy theory to deal with gender issues needs to be addressed if a theory that is not just "more of the same" is to be developed.

[1]  J. Marecek,et al.  Autonomy And Gender: Some Questions For Therapists , 1986 .

[2]  J. Pleck.  The work-family role system. , 1977 .

[3]  G. Albee.  The prevention of sexism. , 1981 .

[4]  A. Brodsky.  A Decade of Feminist Influence on Psychotherapy , 1980 .

[5]  R. T. Hare-Mustin,et al.  Attitude toward motherhood: Gender, generational, and religious comparisons , 1983 .

[6]  D. Ho.  Cultural values and professional issues in clinical psychology. Implications from the Hong Kong experience. , 1985, The American psychologist.

[7]  R. T. Hare-Mustin,et al.  Sanctions and the diversity of ethical complaints against psychologists. , 1983, The American psychologist.

[8]  G. Margolin,et al.  Sex Role Considerations and Behavioral Marital Therapy: Equal Does Not Mean Identical. , 1983 .

[9]  S. Shields.  Functionalism, Darwinism, and the Psychology of Women , 1975 .

[10]  S. Hesse-Biber,et al.  Resource theory and power in families: life cycle considerations. , 1984, Family process.

[11]  D. Sprenkle,et al.  An Empirical Assessment of the Goals of Family Therapy , 1980 .

[12]  P. Dell.  UNDERSTANDING BATESON AND MATURANA: TOWARD A BIOLOGICAL FOUNDATION FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES* , 1985 .

[13]  L. Kerber.  Some Cautionary Words for Historians , 1986, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society.

[14]  B. Weiner,et al.  Is hostility linked with affiliation among males and with achievement among females? A critique of Pollak and Gilligan. , 1983, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[15]  V. Goldner,et al.  Feminism and family therapy. , 1985, Family process.

[16]  P. Caplan,et al.  Mother-blaming in major clinical journals. , 1985, The American journal of orthopsychiatry.

[17]  K. James,et al.  THE REPRODUCTION OF FAMILIES: THE SOCIAL ROLE OF FAMILY THERAPY? , 1983 .

[18]  L. Hoffman,et al.  Changes in Family Roles, Socialization, and Sex Differences. , 1977 .

[19]  K. Deaux.  From individual differences to social categories: analysis of a decade's research on gender , 1984 .

[20]  B. Lott.  The Potential Enrichment of Social/Personality Psychology through Feminist Research, and Vice Versa. , 1985 .

[21]  C E Sluzki,et al.  Process, structure and world views: toward an integrated view of systemic models in family therapy. , 1983, Family process.

[22]  R. T. Hare-Mustin,et al.  Family therapy may be dangerous for your health. , 1980 .

[23]  M. Lamb,et al.  The Nature and Importance of the Father-Infant Relationship. , 1976 .

[24]  Morris Taggart,et al.  THE FEMINIST CRITIQUE IN EPISTEMOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE: QUESTIONS OF CONTEXT IN FAMILY THERAPY , 1985 .