MIAMI UNIVERSITY The Graduate School

Certificate for Approving the Dissertation

We hereby approve the Dissertation

of

Denise R. Brothers

Candidate for the Degree: Doctor of Philosophy

______Director Jennifer R. Bulanda, Ph.D.

______Reader Ronald E. Bulanda, Ph.D.

______Reader C. Lee Harrington, Ph.D.

______Reader Kathryn B. McGrew, Ph.D.

______Graduate School Representative M. Elise Radina, Ph.D.

ABSTRACT

“DOING” LAT: REDOING GENDER AND IN LIVING APART TOGETHER RELATIONSHIPS IN LATER LIFE

by Denise R. Brothers

Current research on intimate relationships of older adults in the U.S. is predominantly focused on . Furthermore, gender relations in later life relationships have historically been studied within long-term marital relationships, which show patterns of high gender conformance earlier in family life, especially with young children, and less so later in life. Demographic and socio- cultural changes are transforming the ways in which people partner across the life course, including later life. Women’s increasing education and workforce participation has helped alter family and household composition, giving rise to different partnership forms including , , , and living apart together (LAT), an in which the couple maintains separate residences. Very little is known about this type of relationship in the U.S. Using a life course framework I examine how gender is manifested in the formation and maintenance of LAT relationships in later life using social constructivism and the theory of gender as social structure. A grounded theory qualitative study with 13 women and 7 men age 59 to 89 reveals patterns of “doing” gender as well as “doing” family earlier in life. LAT relationships in later life appear to be an opportunity to “redo” family in an individualized way, with the men and women both valuing and maintaining the autonomy and freedom that comes in a life stage with lessening work and family responsibilities. Additionally, LAT allows the women in the study to continually “redo” gender by actively resisting doing gender in ways such as being submissive to men, catering to men’s needs and wants, and taking on caregiving duties. This study demonstrates how LAT meets the individualistic needs of both men and women in later life. It is also an intimate relationship that provides the opportunity to exercise agency to act outside of gender norms and expectations present in earlier life, especially for women.

“DOING” LAT: REDOING GENDER AND REDOING FAMILY IN LIVING APART TOGETHER RELATIONSHIPS IN LATER LIFE

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Faculty of

Miami University in partial

fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Sociology and Gerontology

by

Denise R. Brothers

Miami University

Oxford, Ohio

2015

Director: Dr. Jennifer Bulanda

Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES ...... iv LIST OF FIGURES ...... v DEDICATION ...... vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... vii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...... 1 Guiding Frameworks for the Study of Gender, Age, and Relationships ...... 2 Life Course Perspective ...... 3 Social Construction Feminism: Gender as Social Structure ...... 5 Background Literature on Gender, Age, and Relationships ...... 11 The Demography of Partnering: Historical Context and Social Changes in Partnering ...... 11 Gender and Relationships: Gender Ideology, Historical Context, and Social Roles ...... 15 Gender and Repartnering: Agency ...... 17 Potential Contribution to Existing Bodies of Knowledge ...... 20 CHAPTER TWO: METHOD ...... 22 Qualitative Methodology ...... 22 Grounded Theory ...... 23 Sampling in Grounded Theory ...... 25 Recruitment ...... 27 Data Collection ...... 30 Data Analysis ...... 32 Researcher Perspective ...... 35 CHAPTER THREE: FINDINGS ...... 38 HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND PREFORMATION STAGE ...... 41 Description of Participants and Salient Life Course Influences ...... 41 Doing Gender and Doing Family: SNAF Lifestyle ...... 48 CURRENT LIFE STAGE AND FORMATION OF LAT RELATIONSHIPS ...... 54 Redoing Family: Shifting Priorities From Family and Career to Self ...... 54 Men’s Need for Social Connectors and Women’s Need for Separateness ...... 56 The Lack of Terminology for the LAT Relationship in U.S...... 58 Companionate : LAT as a Source for Care and Companionship in Later Life ...... 60 CURRENT LIFE STAGE AND MAINTENANCE OF LAT RELATIONSHIPS...... 62 Individualized Relationship Qualities of LAT ...... 63

ii Men and Finances: Doing Gender in Public and Redoing Gender in Private ...... 65 Women Maximizing Relationship Satisfaction by Minimizing Doing Gender ...... 67 CHAPTER FOUR: DISCUSSION...... 73 Gender and Relationships Earlier in Life: Doing Gender ...... 74 Gender and Relationships in Later Life: Redoing Gender ...... 75 LAT: Redoing Family as an Individualized Intimate Relationship ...... 77 The Life Course and LAT Relationships ...... 79 Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research ...... 81 Conclusions ...... 85 REFERENCES ...... 87 APPENDICES ...... 93 Appendix A. Recruitment flyer ...... 93 Appendix B. Profile sheet ...... 94 Appendix C. First interview guide...... 96 Appendix D. Second interview guide ...... 99 Appendix E. Third interview guide...... 100 Appendix F. Categories of concepts from initial data analysis ...... 101 Appendix G. Informed consent form ...... 106

iii LIST OF TABLES Table 1 U.S. Proportion of 65+ Population by Marital Status and Gender Table 2 Abbreviated Summary of Female Participants Table 3 Abbreviated Summary of Male Participants Table 4 Extended Summary of Female Participants Table 5 Extended Summary of Male Participants Table 6 Traditional/Nontraditional Orientation of Male and Female Participants

iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Gender, Life Course, and Living Apart Together in Later Life Figure 2 Gender and Preformation of LAT Relationships Figure 3 Gender and Formation of LAT Relationships Figure 4 Gender and Maintenance of LAT Relationships

v DEDICATION

To my sister and my best friend, Debra Geister. Thank you for your fierce loyalty.

vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Although I am the sole author of this dissertation, its creation was far from a sole endeavor. Starting with the planting of the seed for the research idea to completing the final draft, so many people have touched this project. First of all, this study would not have been possible without the twenty participants in LAT relationships who volunteered to talk with me about their relationships. I am so honored to have heard their stories, and I hope I have done their experiences justice. I also would like to thank the Department of Sociology and Gerontology for their funding of my doctoral education. I am often asked how I came up with the idea to study living apart together (LAT) relationships in later life. I thank Dr. Lisa Groger for not only introducing me to the topic of LATs, but also for giving me the confidence to pursue a doctoral degree. I aspire to emulate in my own career the and generosity she has for students. She demonstrates the power one teacher has to make a difference in the life of a student. I would like to thank my dissertation committee, Dr. Jennifer Bulanda, Dr. Ronald Bulanda, Dr. C. Lee Harrington, Dr. Kathryn McGrew, and Dr. M. Elise Radina for their encouragement, guidance, comments, and assistance with this research. I would especially like to thank my chair, Dr. Jennifer Bulanda, for her outstanding and unwavering guidance, advice, and encouragement. I am a better writer, scholar, and teacher because of her. I also would like to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Kathryn McGrew for not only her invaluable assistance on methodology, but for helping me to develop confidence in my findings and to speak with a voice of authority. The support of friends and family has been essential to both my sanity and to helping me get to the finish line. Thank you to my oldest friend in the world, Becki Barnes, and my “Barnes family” for providing overnight get-a-ways for me to temporarily “escape” from writing. I offer my heartfelt gratitude to Lydia Manning, former roommate and friend extraordinaire. Her encouragement, guidance, and through this process have been nothing short of a blessing. I offer sincere thanks to my sister and brother-in-law, Debra Geister and Hugh Danville, and to my loyal canine companion, Chico, who has been with me literally every day of this journey. You all show me every day what it means to “do” family!

vii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Demographic and socio-cultural changes in Western societies have transformed and continue to alter the ways in which people partner across the life course, including during later life. Specifically, the second demographic transition, in which improvements in life chances for women have changed family and household composition, has given rise to different partnership forms (Van de Kaa,1988; Lesthaeghe, 1995). Education and employment have facilitated women’s financial independence (Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, 1995), resulting in partnering practices and choices for women other than marriage, including cohabitation, divorce, remarriage, and remaining single or never married, in addition to delaying marriage and childbearing and remaining childfree. Despite the fact that partnering forms and practices are becoming more diverse and less standardized, current research on intimate relationships of older adults in the U.S. remains predominantly focused on more traditional and co-residential ways of partnering: namely, marriage and (more recently) cohabitation. One emerging partnership practice capturing the attention of scholars and policy makers in many European countries and Australia is “living apart together” (LAT), an exclusive intimate relationship in which the couple maintains two separate residences. A unique expression of demographic and socio-cultural changes, LAT relationships are an area ripe for study in the United States. Scholars and policymakers in the U.S. are just beginning to examine this growing relationship arrangement. In addition to learning more about this emerging partnership arrangement in the U.S., LAT relationships in later life are a unique site in which to study evolving gender relations between men and women. Taking into consideration that women’s work and family roles have evolved over time due to their improved life chances, it follows that gender relations within intimate relationships may also be changing. However, gender relations in intimate relationships have historically been studied within the context of more conventional types of relationships, such as marriage. Furthermore, particularly when the later life course is the focus, long-term marital relationships tend to be the target of investigation. Research on gender, age, relationships, and repartnering reveals aspects of conformity as well as non-conformance to traditional gender norms. However, most research to date has yet to use theoretical frameworks that give primacy to understanding conformance and non-conformance to gender norms across the life course. In order to learn more about U.S. LAT relationships in general, and specifically

1 to gain an understanding of gender relations within LAT relationships, I qualitatively explore the following research question: How is gender manifested in the formation and maintenance of LAT relationships in later life? In this chapter, I first describe the theoretical frameworks that guide this research, namely, the life course perspective and social construction feminism. These perspectives facilitate my treatment of gender as not only a social location, but also a dynamic social structure that men and women perform and to which they are accountable. Second, I review the literature on gender, age, and intimate relationships in later life. Finally, I examine how this study contributes to gerontological knowledge in a number of ways. Compared to marriage and cohabitation, LAT relationships are an understudied phenomenon in the U.S., and, therefore, this study extends our understanding of gender and intimate relationships in later life from more traditional relationships to contemporary or alternative partnering practices. In addition, by utilizing a life course framework with an emphasis on gender as social structure, the findings from this study have the potential to contribute to gender and family studies, as well as gerontology. In short, the findings from this study add to our understanding of how gender matters across the life course for men and women born between the years 1921 and 1951 who are currently in LAT relationships. Guiding Frameworks for the Study of Gender, Age, and Relationships One of the strengths of the field of gerontology is its interdisciplinary nature. Analyzing issues of aging and later life from a gerontological perspective allows researchers to cull from various disciplines of knowledge. However, gerontology has been criticized for being data rich but theory poor (Birren, 1999). In an effort to anchor these seemingly disparate areas of knowledge of gender, age, and intimate relationships, I utilize the life course perspective as a framework that guides my research, including the literature review, research question, and methodology. Second, I introduce social construction feminism and the theory of gender as social structure, utilizing the terms “doing” gender and “doing” family, which informs my understanding of how gender is manifested within intimate relationships in general and later-life LAT relationships in particular. These theoretical perspectives help explain how power relations are accomplished through the interaction of gender and age in intimate relationships and how intimate relationships can be sites for reification of gender cultural norms and expectations, as well as opportunities to resist these norms.

2 Life Course Perspective The life course perspective allows for an examination and understanding of human development phenomena that takes into account how outcomes depend on a multitude of factors, including individual biographies, agency and social location, shared cohort conditions, and the historical, social, and cultural contexts of human lives. The power of this perspective lies in its ability to incorporate the psychology of individual life span development (and its changes over time) and the sociological life course perspective that highlights the stability and change of external social forces and how the development of individuals and cohorts are shaped by these forces (Settersten, 2003). This framework integrates the principles of agency and structure to examine how, given the opportunities and constraints of historical contexts and social structure, individuals continually construct their own life paths. Human development and aging are considered life long processes, influenced by not only social location, agency and historical context, but also by the interdependency of humans or what is considered linked lives (Settersten, 2003). The life course framework informs the study of later life relationships by emphasizing the concept of life phase (including chronological age) and its associated societal expectations for roles, rights and duties, and how this concept is also bound or defined by historical time or cohort membership (Hagestad, 2003). Applied specifically to later life partnering, individual biographies unfold over time with relationship trajectories that have become more varied, and may include the presence or absence of marriage, cohabitation, remarriage, and relationship dissolution through divorce or widowhood. The coupling of changing social norms surrounding partnering with the increase in healthy longevity has created an opportunity in later life for more diverse choices in partnering. The life course perspective’s emphasis on place in the social structure suggests how relationships are gendered. Gender as social structure, however, has undergone significant changes in the past 50 years, mostly due to women’s changing roles and opportunities. Partnering in earlier life stages for the current cohort of older men and women was primarily defined by traditional marital and family roles. However, the women’s movement in the 1960s helped to increase opportunities for women to participate in education and professional careers apart from marriage or in addition to marriage. The women’s movement also illuminated gender inequality in pay for equal work, as well as inequities in the traditional division of gendered

3 labor, which were often taken for granted and unquestioned. Left unchallenged, traditional gender roles appear as a “natural” division of work between what was considered feminine and masculine. Although woman’s roles were expanding in society, men’s roles remained stagnant; as women gained employment outside the home, they were still responsible for most if not all of the duties that centered around the home (i.e., domestic and child work), giving rise to the second shift for women (Hochschild, 1989). The time period of the 1960s and 1970s also brought with it growth in cohabitation among younger adults, single parenting, divorce, and remarriage, as well as the uncoupling of sex from procreation with the wider availability and use of birth control for women. While many older adults experienced this more traditional division of labor in their earlier and , they also witnessed the changes in the partnering practices of younger cohorts, and have experienced increasing longevity and better health than previous cohorts of older adults. Many men and women are entering later life in relatively good health, with the potential to live another 20 to 30 years. An increasing number of these individuals are not married, and instead of remaining single, they are partnering in new ways, including remarriage, cohabitation, and LAT. In addition to understanding the dynamics of gender as social structure, the life course perspective recognizes how the individual is embedded within and shaped by the historical context in which their lives are unfolding, including historical events and the social and cultural norms of a specific time period in history. The significance of the time and place, or historical context of relationships in later life, suggests the importance of understanding prevailing societal and cultural attitudes toward gender and relationships during the time period in which today’s older adults grew up. Partnering in earlier life phases during the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, was predominantly in the form of marriage, and in most instances, marriage was followed by children. These early partnerships are characterized by heteronormativity, or the hegemonic ideals of heterosexuality, which includes traditional gender norms and family values (Oswald, Kuvalanka, Blume, & Berkowitz, 2009). For many of today’s older adults, this model of marriage relied on the performance of traditional gender roles, in which the was the major breadwinner and the was the homemaker and . This hegemonic ideal of marriage was especially strong for middle-class, white couples; this ideal of a single breadwinner was more difficult for lower-income families to achieve (Cherlin, 2009).

4 The life course perspective suggests that it is not only social structural and historical contexts that impact an individual lives, but also the varied life experiences that create individual or personal biographies. The idea of personal biographies can be seen in the repartnering practices of older adults, showing how the experience of earlier life relationships informs their choice for a LAT relationship in later life. Older men and women come to later life with a number of years of experience in other relationships (like marriage), and their experiences in other relationships inform their desire and preference for certain partnerships in later life, creating individuation of experiences, or personal biographies. Coupling individuation with agency allows us to recognize how individual men and women construct their life paths through the choices and actions they take within the opportunities and constraints of history, social, and individual circumstances. The life course perspective not only provides a framework for studying LAT relationships in later life, it also accommodates an additional sensitizing framework I use in order to understand how gender operates over the life course (i.e., social construction feminism). The social structure of gender changes not only with age, but across historical time, facilitating opportunities for some men and women to circumvent traditional gender roles in intimate relationships. As Hagestad (2003) says, “The social structure of age is very often paired with constructions of gender, resulting in distinct contrasts between his and her life” (p. 136). The literatures on gender, age, relationships and repartnering reflect the types of differences to which Hagestad is referring. For example, older men are more likely to remarry than older women, and older women are more likely to remain single or prefer a LAT relationship over co-residential type of partnering. My aim is to study LAT relationships through a lens which gives primacy to gender as social structure, and the ways in which men and women can “do” or “redo” gender in later-life intimate relationships. In addition, because the performance of gender within marriage in early life is so closely tied to the conventional form of the nuclear family in U.S. culture, I also use the framework of doing family to explore the potential for older adults to redo family by forming and maintaining a LAT relationship, an intimate relationship, I assert, with individualized qualities. Social Construction Feminism: Gender as Social Structure Feminist theories, in general, reveal how gender is relational and, when examined, often reveal power relations, inequalities, privileges, and disadvantages. In short, gender is understood

5 as a social location (along with other social locations, such as race and class). Social construction feminism, in particular, posits that gender is socially constructed and not biologically determined. Social constructionism examines how unchallenged notions of binary qualities or characteristics (e.g., masculinity/femininity, man/woman, positive/negative, breadwinner/homemaker, instrumental/affective) perpetuate gender differences and gender inequality. As Lorber (1998) notes, “What social construction feminism reveals is how we all collude in maintaining the unequal gendered social order, most of the time without even realizing we are ‘doing gender’” (p. 172). Not only is gender understood as a social location, but the contexts in which gender is continuously performed (e.g., labor markets or families) are also socially constructed to perpetuate gender differences and inequality. Risman (1998) makes this point that within family, intimate relationships remain significant social institutions where “gender is still accepted…as a reasonable and legitimate basis for the distribution of rights, power, privilege, and responsibilities” (p. 4). One way to examine gender within the context of intimate relationships is West and Zimmerman’s (1987) constructionist and interactionist framework of “doing” gender. West and Zimmerman have contributed significantly to the understanding of gender, conceptualizing it not as a “property of individuals” (West & Zimmerman, 1987, p. 126) or as a fixed entity, but as an on-going action. According to this framework, males and females do gender through micro- interactions and “routine, methodical, and recurring accomplishment” (p. 126) of what is considered “normative conceptions of attitudes and activities appropriate for one’s sex category” (p. 127). Acting within one’s sex category, men and women in intimate relationships adhere to norms and standards involving what is appropriate for their gender and for which judgment from others can occur. West and Zimmerman (2009) delineate appropriate methods for using their framework, which include conversational analysis, unstructured interviews, and diaries. Risman (1998) argues that West and Zimmerman’s (1987) approach to gender is incomplete in failing to account for the other levels in which gender is understood. Risman (1998) claims that “[a]lthough gender is always present in interaction, it is not present only in interaction” (p. 23). Utilizing Risman’s (1998) theory of gender as structure builds on West and Zimmerman’s micro-level examination of gender as an ongoing performance to also include other levels of analysis where gender structure has consequences. Risman’s treatment of gender as structure encompasses three levels of analysis. First, the individual level accounts for the way

6 in which males and females are socialized to be men and women. This level is important in understanding the lives of my participants. As discussed in the previous section on the life course perspective, the cohorts of men and women in this study experienced traditional gender socialization and changes in gender structure over their lifetimes. Second, the interactional level of analysis reflects the “[c]ultural expectations; taken-for-granted situational meanings” of gender” (Risman, 1998, p. 29), and is “at the heart of doing gender” (Risman, 2009, p. 83). This level of analysis is central to understanding how gender manifests in LAT relationships, due to not only the changing gender norms that have occurred over time for the participants in the study, but also the performance of gender within a new type of intimate relationship that is not institutionalized. Third, the institutional level accounts for the ways formal institutions regulate resource distribution, such as in the workplace and family. In short, not only does gender structure at the interactional level perpetuate male privilege in marriage and family, but Risman (1998) states that “[g]ender expectations are socially constructed, and sustained by socialization, interactional expectations, and institutional arrangements” and that change in gender structure can occur “…when individuals and collectivities change socialization, expectations, and institutions” (p. 152). Instead of utilizing West and Zimmerman’s (1987) interactionalist approach to understanding the performance of gender at the micro-level, I use Risman’s (1998, 2004) framework that analyzes gender structure at the interactional level of analysis. The interactional level of analysis allows me to account for how the men and women in this study are products of traditional gender socialization, but have also witnessed changing gender norms and family forms in their life times. Gender as social structure is often studied within the context of existing institutions such as work, marriage, and family that occur earlier in the life course; exploring gender as social structure has been underutilized in gerontology. While the work of Risman (1998) reflects the evolution of gender structure for different generations, it does not explicitly focus on age or aging as a factor that impacts gender structure across the life course. In my study I seek to understand conformance and non-conformance to cultural expectations surrounding gender and family in a later life intimate relationship which has yet to become institutionalized (i.e., it has no name and no formal norms and rules). Risman’s (1998) empirical work using the theory of gender as social structure to understand non-traditional families relied on both qualitative and quantitative data. Unlike

7 Risman’s broad methodological approach, West and Zimmerman’s (1987, 2009) approach is more narrow, and much of the research that utilizes West and Zimmerman’s (1987) constructivist and interactionist approach to understanding gender misses the mark methodologically (Wikes & Emmison, 2007). Wikes and Emmison (2007) conducted a meta analysis of the doing gender literature from the term’s inception in 1987 through 2005 and found that very few studies reflected the “…theoretical underpinnings of the concept and the ontological status” (p. 316). Instead, they find the term has has been appropriated or “…assimilated into current theoretical and methodological practice” (p. 311). I use the concept of doing gender that is congruent with its use in family studies and social gerontology; doing gender goes beyond the micro-level interactions to include the ways in which men’s and women’s accounts of their intimate relationships can be used to identify conformance and non- conformance to gender norms and expectations. At the same time Wickes and Emmison (2007) leveled their critique of the methods researchers were using to explore doing gender, other scholars were building on the concept of doing gender to describe not only conformance with—but resistance to—gender norms. Deutsch (2007) argued that research should go beyond identifying ways men and women are doing gender to explore how they are “undoing” gender or the interactions that help reduce gender difference. This shift in focus reflects not only the idea of agency within social interactions, but how social interactions are embedded within contexts that present opportunities that may encourage resistance to gender norms (Deutsch, 2007; Risman, 2009). For example, Walzer’s (2008) findings from her study on gender and divorce go beyond undoing gender to “redoing” gender. Walzer (2008) makes an important distinction between these two concepts. Although the concepts share the features of men and women being aware of and accountable to gender norms, those who are redoing gender question the inappropriateness of gender violations. In the case of divorce and parenting, Walzer (2008) explains, “They hold themselves to different standards on the other side of marriage…If marriage is a site for ‘doing’ gender, divorce may generate a ‘redoing’ in the sense that some people identify and modify expectations” for gendered behavior in families (p. 6). Risman (2009) appears to echo both Deutsch’s (2007) and Walzer’s (2008) sentiments, when she claims that research should identify sites (whether it is at the level of socialization, interactions, or institutions) where men and women can exercise agency “to effectively reject habitualized gender routines” (p. 434).

8 In addition to the evolution of the framework of doing gender to include undoing and redoing gender, the appropriation of the doing gender concept is evident in scholarship in family studies and social gerontology. Scholarship in these fields has utilized the concepts of doing, undoing, and redoing gender to explain gender conformity and non-conformity in families, using methods outside those originally used by West and Zimmerman. Walker (1996) relied on semi- structured interviews with individual men and women in heterosexual and gay or lesbian relationships to understand doing gender in the context of television viewing and remote control use among couples. Walzer’s (2008) research (discussed in the previous paragraph) relied on secondary data analysis of divorcee’ semi-structured interviews and self-reported questionnaires that captured “retrospective awareness of accountability to gender expectations in marriage” (p. 11). Another example of family research that utilizes doing gender is Chelsey’s (2011) research on stay-at-home and breadwinning . This research also relied on individual in- depth individuals interviews with men and women to identify ways in which they do and redo gender. Lodge and Umberson (2012) used in-depth interviews, relying on “individuals’ accounts of their own feelings and experiences” (p. 432) to understand not only the performance of gender, but age as well, to examine sexuality in the relationships of mid-life and later-life married couples. Bjork (2015) used individual in-depth interviews to examine doing masculinity in elder care, and these narratives were “analyzed as a performative act through which, and by which, gendered norms were reproduced or contested” (p. 23). Admittedly, Bjork acknowledges adopting the concept of doing gender to highlight the significance of gender accountability, not the “…performance of the caring practices, per se” (p. 24). Therefore, in accordance with Risman’s (1987, 2004) interactional level of analysis, and with the family studies and social gerontology scholarship, I use the concepts of doing and redoing gender to represent ways in which the men and women conform (or not) to gender norms and expectations in LAT relationships utilizing semi-structured interviews. While I use the terms doing and redoing gender to reflect conformance and nonconformance to gender norms and expectations, family is also an institution for gender socialization and conformance. Men and women are not only socialized into gender roles within family; family is also an institution with which gender roles are reified, resisted, and sometimes transformed. Therefore, another framework I use in understanding LAT relationships and gender is the idea of family practices, or “doing” family, as a way in which we can understand the

9 individual routine actions and activities of family life (Morgan, 1996). The concept of doing family is useful in recognizing the divergence between the heteronormative ideology of the nuclear family so prevalent in U.S. culture and the many ways in which individuals are doing family beyond marriage, , or other co-residential arrangements of families (Morgan, 1996). As is the case for doing gender, doing family signals the idea the family is not simply a fixed entity, but a dynamic and socially constructed structure which reflects ongoing changes in societal and cultural norms. For example, the concept of doing family has been used to understand the ways gay and lesbian couples and heterosexual couples without children negotiate family life (Carrington, 1999; Blackstone, 2014). Smart and Neale (1999) used the idea of family practices to understand parenting and family life post-divorce, and Nelson (2006) showed how doing family for single mothers involved preserving the possibility of having a traditional nuclear family. While many men and women may find themselves in alternative family arrangements in later life, a common pattern earlier in life is doing family according to the Standard North American Family (SNAF). Smith (1993) coined the term Standard North American Family (SNAF) to describe an “ideological code…a conception of family as a legally married couple sharing a household” (p. 52), where the male in the couple is the breadwinner, and the female’s responsibility may include earning income, but whose primary responsibility is taking care of the husband, household, and children. Therefore, I suggest that implicit within the heteronormative ideology of the nuclear family (or what Smith, 1993, calls SNAF), men and women are doing gender. In summary, an exploration of how gender is manifested in LAT relationships in later life benefits from a life course perspective. The life course perspective provides a historical map of how gender as social structure has undergone dynamic change over the last one-half of the twentieth century, especially for women. Although the majority of older people today experienced traditional marriage and family earlier in life, their lives were also unfolding during a time period in which women’s opportunities to earn an education and have careers were increasing, along with their opportunity to be financially independent from men. In addition, older men and women witnessed society’s growing acceptance of non-marital and non- residential relationships, and of sex apart from marriage and for reasons other than procreation. Furthermore, improvements in health and longevity and being in a life phase less encumbered by

10 traditional gendered division of labor help to set the stage for diversity in later-life repartnering. In short, the life course perspective and the theory of gender as social structure, coupled with the concepts of doing gender and doing family, help to show how many men and women have the means and opportunity to do gender differently within these new relationships in later life. Background Literature on Gender, Age, and Relationships In addition to the guiding theoretical frameworks used in this research, and in order to more fully understand the demographic and socio-cultural context in which people are partnering, an exploration of three separate but interrelated areas of empirical work is necessary. The first explores the demographic changes that are altering the ways in which people are partnering across the life course, including in later life. The second examines how gender ideology changes over the life course within the context of marriage, parenting, and labor force participation. Later life is a new context for relationship formation and repartnering due to the potential for the absence of daily parenting responsibilities and labor force participation present in earlier life stages. In addition, older adults have partnership options (e.g., cohabitation, living apart together) that were considered unacceptable at a time when they were young. The third, therefore, focuses specifically on repartnering literature (which includes living apart together) to show how the practice of repartnering is influenced by both gender and age. The Demography of Partnering: Historical Context and Social Changes in Partnering The demographic transition is the process through which a country transitions from having high mortality and fertility rates to low mortality and fertility rates. Modernization theory helps explain how economic changes brought about by industrialization improve a society’s income and public health systems, setting the stage for changes. Mortality rates decline first, especially among younger people, due to improvements in health outcomes. Once countries begin experiencing these improvements in mortality, fertility rates also decline. Coale (1973) outlines the societal conditions that must be satisfied in order for fertility rates to decline: religious and cultural acceptability of women to control their own fertility decisions, availability of ways to control fertility, and additional ways for women to participate in their economic and social worlds beyond childbearing and childrearing (e.g., education). The combination of controlling fertility and increasing labor market participation help to make women less economically dependent on men (Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, 1995). These improvements in women’s life chances, or the opportunities they have to make improvements in their lives, have

11 reverberating consequences for family structure and the dynamics of family and intimate relationships. The consequences of the demographic transition for family life have been termed the “second demographic transition” (Van de Kaa,1988; Lesthaeghe, 1995). The timing of this transition in the U.S. helped to reshape the U.S. partnering landscape from one dominated by marriage and family formation to the inclusion of other ways of partnering, including remaining single. In the U.S., the first signs of the second demographic transition were the increasing rates of divorce beginning in the 1950s (Lesthaeghe, 2010). The 1960s witnessed access to efficient birth control methods, declining fertility rates, and changes in both the timing and type of partnering. Age at first marriage and first childbirth began to increase, and childbearing outside of marriage was on the rise (Lesthaeghe, 2010). With increasing rates of singlehood and cohabitation, and decreasing rates of remarriage following divorce and widowhood, the proportion of the population that was married began to decline. (Lesthaeghe, 2010). Today, post-marriage relationships are more likely to include cohabitation and LAT relationships instead of remarriage (Lesthaeghe, 2014). These changes in family and household structures are ongoing. The nuclear family structure (i.e., married couples with children) is becoming less common. While this structure accounted for 40.3% of households in 1970, it represented only 19.6% in 2012 (Vespa, Lewis, & Kreider, 2013). Furthermore, many other non-traditional household types increased in proportion during the same time period. Between 1960 and 2011, the share of family households led by women increased from 7% to 25%, and the proportion of these female-headed families in which the mother had never married grew from 4% to 44% during that same time period (Wang, Parker, & Taylor, 2013). Cohabitating couple households increased almost four-fold between 1970 and 2012, from 1.7% to 6.50% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). Living alone is also on the rise; 11.5% of women and 5.6% of men lived alone in 1970, but by 2012 those rates had risen to 15.2% and 12.3%, respectively (Vespa, et. al, 2013). Dual-earner families are also more common; the rate of employment for married women with children increased from 37% in 1968 to 65% in 2011, and the proportion of women who out-earn their increased from 4% in 1960 to 15% in 2011 (Wan, Parker, & Taylor, 2013). Changes in fertility, increasing labor force participation by women, and the subsequent diversity of household structures impact how many older adults partner in their later years.

12 Specifically, current trends and future projections show that both women and men will spend proportionally fewer years married, fewer older adults will be married in their later years, more people will remain never married, and more older people will be formerly married. Since age at first marriage is increasing, the portion of life spent in marriage is declining. In 1970, the median age at first marriage for men and women were 23.2 and 20.8 respectively, while in 2013 the median age had increased to 29.0 for men and 26.6 for women (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013a). Patterns of marriage over time show a decline in the number of men and women married. In 1970, 67% of men and 61% of women were married, but by 2013, those proportions had dropped to 53% for men and 51% for women (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013b). The proportion of married individuals over the age of 65 is projected to continually decline for men while remaining relatively constant for women. In 1990 almost three out of four older men were married; by 2050 that figure is projected to drop to around two-thirds (Bell, 1997). The majority of this decline in marriage for older men can be attributed to the increasing rate of men who never marry (from 5.5% in 1990 to almost 12% in 2050). Women spend fewer years in marriage than men, and projections suggest that the proportion of women who are married in later life will continue to be lower than that of men, at about 42% by 2050. The percentage of women who are widowed will gradually decline, due to improved life expectancy for men. However, the decreasing rate of widowhood is expected to be offset by an increase in the proportion of women who are divorced as well as a growing percentage of women who will never marry.

Table 1 U.S. Proportion of 65+ Population by Marital Status and Gender

Men Women

Year Birth Cohort Married Single* Widowed Divorced Married Single* Widowed Divorced

2010 < 1946 72.96% 4.81% 14.92% 7.29% 41.38% 4.43% 45.09% 9.09%

2020 < 1956 72.23 5.75 13.20 8.82 44.38 4.84 37.45 13.32

2030 < 1966 68.85 8.62 12.98 9.54 44.81 6.08 34.17 14.93

2040 < 1976 66.30 10.89 13.87 8.94 42.73 7.33 35.56 14.38

2050 < 1986 65.92 11.93 13.64 8.51 41.91 8.50 35.78 13.80

Source: Bell, F. C. (1997). Social Security area population projections. 1997 (Actuarial Study 112). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. * Never married

13 With fewer older adults in long-term marriages in the future, more will be single or formerly married. By 2050, Bell (1997) projects that 34% of older men and 58% of older women will be never-married, divorced, or widowed. These changes in marital status have direct implications for the composition of households, and are reflected in the Census Bureau data from 2012 on living arrangements of men and women 65 years of age and older. Approximately 72% of older men and 45% of older women reported living with a , 19% of men and 36% of women report living alone, while a very small percentage of the older men and women report cohabiting (2% and 1%, respectively) (Vespa, et. al, 2013). However, although many older adults are living alone, that does not necessarily signify an unpartnered status. This is evidenced by the number of men and women in LAT relationships. The size of the LAT population in the U.S. can be estimated using the General Social Survey (GSS) and the National Social Life, Health and Aging Project (NSHAP). Pooled data from 1996 and 1998 waves of the GSS show that, among heterosexual women and men age 23 to 70 years of age, 7% and 6% (respectively) have a romantic partner with whom they do not live (Strohm, Seltzer, Cochran, & Mays, 2009); this represents one-third of the individuals who would otherwise be categorized as single. Data from the NSHAP, a survey of older men and women between the ages of 57 and 85, shows that approximately 14% of older individuals who are not married or cohabiting report having a romantic, intimate or (Brown & Shinohara, 2014). Furthermore, the size of the LAT population is likely to continue growing as the Baby Boomers age into later life. When compared to older generations, which had more traditional trajectories of partnering, the Baby Boom generation has been exposed to and experienced growing rates of divorce, remarriage, and cohabitation, and has also been more likely to delay or forego marriage and/or childbearing. In addition to the demography of family and households changing, the socio-cultural landscape of partnering is also changing. Individualization theorists argue that in modern societies, intimate relationships (such as marriage) are becoming deinstitutionalized, or less determined by social structures and normative expectations, and instead are formed and maintained as long as the individuals remain satisfied with the relationship (Giddens, 1992). This concept of “pure relationship” assumes a high degree of individual agency and suggests the continuation of intimate relationships is contingent on the mutual physical and emotional satisfaction of both partners (Giddens, 1991, 1992), and not the performance of gender-

14 specialized roles inherent in the traditional nuclear family (Cherlin, 2004). The qualities of an individualized institution of marriage, therefore, would reflect ways maintain independence and individual identity rather than interdependence and shared identity (Cherlin, 2009; Yodanis & Lauer, 2014). Independence and individual identity within an individualized marriage is expressed not only through maintaining separate family names, living apart, keeping financial resources and social networks separate, but also by the impermanent nature of the relationship and maintaining an “independent rather than interdependent paid work and caring roles” (Yodanis & Lauer, 2014, p. 188). Individualized relationships, therefore, potentially offer opportunities to transcend gender inequality and facilitate egalitarian relationships, and “…a tolerance for alternative and more experimental intimacies such as cohabitation, living apart together (LAT), and lesbian and gay relationships” (Chambers, 2012, p. 36-37). Arguably a product of the second demographic transition and its associated emphasis on individualism within intimate relationships, the occurrence of LAT relationships calls into question the ways in which we have historically understood family. Bianchi (2014) calls for family research that incorporates relationships that “span households” as well as identifying how certain relationships may fit some life stages better than others (also see Malta & Farquharson, 2014). Gender and Relationships: Gender Ideology, Historical Context, and Social Roles Studies on men and women’s conformance and non-conformance with traditional gender stereotypes reflect patterns and changes that occur with age, historical context, and performance of social roles and life experiences. Some evidence suggests gender attitudes become less traditional with age. Older women of the Baby Boom and Great Depression generations demonstrate less traditional attitudes toward gender with age (Lynott & McCandless, 2000). For men and women born in the 1920s, scores on measures of traditional femininity decreased with age for women and increased with age for men, and this change was found irrespective of marital or parental status (Jones, Peskin, & Livson, 2011). While some research does show less conformance with gender-linked traits over time, historical context also appears to be at work. The women’s movement, and particularly the occurrence of this movement at a time when women’s identity development in adolescence and early adulthood was taking place, appears to have influenced Boomer women (Strough, Leszczynski, Neely, Flinn, & Margrett, 2007). When compared to older cohorts of women, Strough et. al (2007) found that Boomer women were more likely to endorse masculine

15 personality traits and had higher androgyny scores. When it comes to men and gender conformity, the pattern is not the same; men’s identification with masculine personality traits remained steady over the life span, as did women and men’s scores on feminine traits, with the exception of the older men (70-79 years of age): they scored higher on androgyny, suggesting older men may start identifying with both masculine as well as feminine personality traits. Consistent with the life course perspective, prevailing gender ideology of the historical time period in which individuals are raised likely has an enduring effect on their own gender ideology as they age. In addition, an age effect may also be at work, with men and women showing less conformance to gender stereotypes over time. This suggests that gender, or traditional gender attitudes, become less salient in later life. A routine predictor of gender conformance to traditional gender stereotypes, especially for white men and women, is the performance of social roles and life experiences such as being a student, worker, spouse and . Research shows that divorce, years of education, and especially labor force participation are correlated with less traditional gender attitudes as well as higher masculinity scores for women (Lynott & McCandless, 2000). In addition, being a wife and a mother, especially of very young children or multiple children, is related to more traditional gender attitudes and higher femininity scores (Roberts, Helson, & Klohnen, 2002). Vespa (2009) found that egalitarian ideology decreased for both men and women who were married and parenting. Research on older couples who no longer have children at home shows a pattern of reclaiming opposite gender-linked traits (Gutmann, 1987). Gutmann’s parental imperative model explains why this pattern occurs. The theory posits that effective parenting requires men and women to take on gender-linked qualities while suppressing opposite-gender-linked qualities. When parenting responsibilities diminish and specialization in their gender-linked traits is no longer necessary, women and men tend to reclaim the opposite-gender-linked qualities. Research on in the late stages of launching children find that fathers who no longer have children under the age of 24 in their homes are more likely to describe themselves in feminine terms, and mothers report asserting themselves more in their marriages (Huyck, 1996; Huyck & Gutmann, 1992). Husbands also report practicing a more collaborative or conceding marital style and less of a patriarchal one (Huyck, 1996; Huyck & Gutmann, 1992). However, as

16 noted earlier, more recent research by Jones et. al (2011) showed a similar pattern for men born in the 1920s (i.e., increasing feminine traits with age) irrespective of marital or parental roles. In sum, there is some evidence that shows conformance to traditional gender stereotypes and gender-linked qualities decreases across the life course, at least for the men and women born before the Baby Boom generation. In addition, conformance to traditional gender stereotypes appears strong when examined within the context of occupational roles and family roles (e.g., student, spouse, and parent), which are more likely to be performed at younger ages, and egalitarian attitudes for white couples tend to decrease within the contexts of marriage and parenting. In addition to work and family roles predicting gender ideology, the cohort of Boomer women whose identity was shaped by the woman’s movement appear to score higher on endorsement of masculine traits in their 40s and 50s, demonstrating the significance of the historical context in shaping gender ideology (Strough, Leszczynski, Neely, Flinn, & Margrett, 2007). In addition, understanding gender and aging for older couples has generally been studied within roles, specifically, being parents in a long-term marriage, which reveals a reclaiming of opposite-gender-linked qualities for both men and women once children are launched. However, this traditional way of partnering is becoming less common, and singlehood in later life is on the rise in a life phase marked by increasing longevity. Estimates show that a significant number of single older adults are partnering in ways other than marriage, and, yet, little is known about how gender matters or operates in less conventional types of partnerships, such as LAT relationships. Gender and Repartnering: Agency Research studies reveal gender differences in interest in and practice of partnering in later life, including partnering following the death of a spouse or divorce, the influence of increasing age on repartnering, and the preferences for different types of partnerships (such as remarriage, cohabitation, and LAT). This research consistently shows that women express lower interest in and lower rates of repartnering than men, and examines possible reasons for these gender differences. Although there are some studies from the U.S. on interest in repartnering following widowhood and in later life, the bulk of this research has been conducted in other countries (i.e., Australia, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Canada). Interest in repartnering is negatively correlated with increasing age. Older men and women are less likely to be interested in repartnering than their younger counterparts, especially for among those over age 70 (Stevens, 2002). But, older men tend to be more interested in co-

17 residential types of partnering than older women. Although older adults in the U.S. are less interested in marrying or cohabiting and are less likely to be dating than younger adults, men at all ages are more interested than women in marriage or cohabitation (Bulcroft & Bulcroft, 1991; Moorman, Booth, & Fingerman, 2006; Carr, 2004). When compared to , American widowers are more likely to report a desire to remarry, an interest in dating, and to be currently dating, at both six and 18 months after spousal death (Carr, 2004). Increasing age is negatively associated with both interest in remarriage as well as becoming remarried after the death of a spouse (Moorman, Booth, & Fingerman, 2006). Older women’s apparent lack of interest in repartnering is often attributed to a lack of supply, not demand. In short, it is frequently argued that the lower rates of repartnering for older women are due to the demographic imbalance of older men versus older women in later life, particularly given the cultural practice of women generally partnering with older men. However, a growing body of literature suggests that many women are exercising agency in the decision, choosing to remain unpartnered due to enjoying the autonomy and freedom that comes with this new phase of life, and expressing greater satisfaction with single life following widowhood than their male counterparts (Davidson, 2001, 2002; Stevens, 2002). Davidson (2001) also found women reluctant to remarry because they did not want to fulfill the traditional gendered expectations of spousal and domestic care often inherent in earlier marriages. The research on the practice of repartnering shows that increasing age, gender, and type and number of marital dissolutions all influence repartnering outcomes in later life. Not surprising, De Jong (2002) found that Dutch men of all ages are not only more likely to repartner when compared to women, they also repartner more quickly. In addition, just as interest in repartnering is correlated with increasing age, age also predicts the repartnering outcome for older adults in the Netherlands, Australia, and Canada, with older adults having an increasing preference for LAT (De Jong, 2002; Malta & Farquharson, 2014. Funk & Kobayashi, 2014). Men and women over age 70 were more likely to favor LAT over marriage or cohabiting, and women (more so than men) were more likely to be in a LAT relationship than a co-residential one (De Jong, 2002). In the U.S., older men are more likely to be in a dating relationship than are older women, yet dating declines for both men and women with increasing age (Brown & Shinohara, 2013). The type and number of marital dissolutions also predicts repartnering outcomes. Compared to those who are divorced, Dutch men and women who are widowed were

18 more likely to be LAT than remarried or cohabiting, as are those who have experienced two or more marital dissolutions (De Jong, 2002). On the other hand, older adults in the U.S. show a different pattern; older men and women who are divorced are more likely to be in a dating relationship than are those who are widowed or never married (Brown & Shinohara, 2013). Age at marital dissolution also appears to predict repartnering outcomes similarly for men and women. Dutch individuals who are younger when their marriages end (mean age of 42) were more likely to remarry, whereas those who are older (mean age 59) were more likely to be LAT (De Jong, 2002). There is not yet research on gendered preferences for LAT in the U.S. However, research in other countries suggest that older women’s apparent preference for LAT over co-residential unions echoes the reasons given by older women who lack interest in repartnering: a preference for living alone and the opportunity to circumvent the traditional gendered expectations that often accompany co-residential unions (Borell & Karlsson, 2003; Dickson, Hughs, & Walker, 2005; Funk & Kobayashi, 2014; Karlsson & Borell, 2002, 2005; Malta & Farquharson, 2014; Upton-Davis, 2013; ). In addition, women in LAT relationships desire to maintain the autonomy they have in a LAT because it allows them to have control over their schedule and to establish the desired level of integration of their LAT partner with their social network of friends and family (Karlsson & Borell, 2005; Malta & Farquharson, 2014). Women in LAT relationships also reported that the relationship arrangement enhanced the quality of their partnership by minimizing conflicts or differences that would have mattered more if they lived together (Upton- Davis, 2013). Although older women in LAT relationships express a resistance to performing the traditional gendered division of duties expected from them in previous relationships, expectations and performance of traditional gender roles still prevail in some aspects of their relationship. Older women in the U.S. expect men to not only initiate dating, but to pay for the outing (Dickson, Hughes, & Walker, 2005). In addition to gendered expectations in dating in later life, when LAT couples spend time together, they report performing duties along gendered lines; women are often responsible for meals, whereas men are more likely to do home repairs (Karlsson & Borell, 2002; Upton-Davis, 2013). In addition, men often enact a financial provider role in LAT relationships (Lyssens-Danneboom & Mortelmans, 2014). This research suggests

19 that both resistance and adherence to traditional gendered expectations appears to be at work in later-life LAT relationships. Overall, the research on reparterning in later life shows the influence of age and gender on both the interest and practice of repartnering. Interest in repartnering tends to decline with age. When compared to older women, older men express more interest in repartnering, repartner more quickly, and tend to favor co-residential types of unions. Older women, on the other hand, tend to favor LAT over marriage or cohabitation because it allows them to maintain control and autonomy over their lives, including circumventing some (but not all) of the traditional gendered expectations present in earlier relationships. In addition, these gendered differences, especially findings that show “older women play a vital role in establishing and upholding LAT- relationships” (Karlsson & Borell, 2002, p. 11), provide evidence for how power relations based on gender are embedded in relationships across the life course. LAT relationships in later life may offer women and men the freedom to resist traditional gendered expectations that are so strongly embedded within marital relationships. Potential Contribution to Existing Bodies of Knowledge In general, one main gap in the literature is a lack of research on living apart together in the United States. While many European countries have already incorporated living apart together into partnering research, U.S. research on later life relationships other than marriage is in the nascent stage at best. Sassler (2010) echoes this: “Current research…has given short shrift to (re)partnering at older ages” (p. 561). Given the growth of the older population, and the fact that many men and women will be unmarried in later life (but not necessarily unpartnered), it is important to begin learning more about this type of relationship in the U.S. Due to a lack of focus on LAT relationships in the U.S., the knowledge we have of gender and intimate relationships in later life tends to be limited to the context of long-term marriages with children. Furthermore, while the literatures on relationships and repartnering do reveal clear gender differences, scholars to date have not situated these findings explicitly within theories that address issues of gender, family, and power imbalances in intimate relationships. In addition, a life course perspective adds a complexity to understanding gender, repartnering, and living apart together, and anchors my findings within gender, family, and gerontological literatures. The potential contributions of this study to existing research on later-life relationships include adding LAT relationships to the existing spectrum of partnering practices and extending our

20 understanding of gender and intimate relationships in later life from traditional relationships to alternative partnering practice. At the same time, the findings from this study reflect a depth in our understanding of gender and LAT relationships by utilizing a life course framework with an emphasis on gender, family, and power.

21

CHAPTER TWO: METHOD In order to gain an understanding of the role gender plays within LAT relationships, I qualitatively explored the following research question: How is gender manifested in the formation and maintenance of LAT relationships in later life? I include three guiding sub- questions, which serve to operationalize the concept of how “gender manifestation”:  How does the experience of one’s gender conform to and/or resist traditional gender norms, and how do men and women enact their own conformance and resistance?  How do the gendered experience(s) of being in a later life LAT relationship relate to the gendered experience(s) in earlier life stages and relationships?  To what extent and in which contexts do men and women in LAT relationship arrangements experience traditional and/or non-traditional gender relations? Specifically, my approach to this study is both inductive and exploratory, with the aim of theory development grounded in the data that takes into account how gender is manifested in the formation and maintenance of LAT relationships in later life. The goal of qualitative inquiry is a deep, focused, and nuanced understanding of the phenomenon; generalizability of findings to the wider population is not an aim. The resulting theory serves to explain the phenomenon as it relates to the participants’ experiences. Furthermore, when conducted with methodological rigor, including validation strategies such as prolonged with participants, elucidating researcher bias, member checking, and providing rich and thick descriptions of participants (Creswell, 2007), readers can judge the applicability or transferability of research findings to other situations (Hoepfl, 1997). For my study, I specifically use the constructivist grounded theory approach, drawing on semi-structured interviews with men and women in LAT relationships in the U.S. Qualitative Methodology This study compels a qualitative method because of the nature of the research question, the concept of LAT as an emerging cultural phenomenon, the dynamics of relationship formation, and the paradigmatic lens that I brought to the study. Qualitative methodology is a necessary tool for research that investigates the nature of people’s lived experiences of a phenomenon, especially a phenomenon of which little is known (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). This lived experience includes people’s behaviors, , and feelings concerning a cultural

22 phenomena (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In addition, qualitative research is well suited for research that focuses on process, such as relationship formation and maintenance, and not simply an outcome or product (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1990; Merriam, 1988). These aims of qualitative methods make it an obvious choice for examining LAT; we know very little about this type of relationship in the U.S., including its formation and maintenance. Contributing to the challenge of building knowledge about LAT relationships is the fact that, unlike in some other countries, there does not exist a name or term for this relationship arrangement in the U.S. (a challenge I address later in this chapter). The impact of being in a relationship that has no name has the added effect of denying visibility to the couples or the individuals who are in LAT relationships, and qualitative research is appropriate for situations in which “…we want to empower individuals to share their stories, hear their voices…” (Creswell, 2007, p. 40). In addition to exploring a new type of intimate relationship in later life and giving voice to those who are in this type of relationship, a qualitative approach to exploring the research question accommodates the social constructivist lens that I bring to this research. A social constructivist approach to producing knowledge assumes a relativist ontology, a subjectivist epistemology, and a naturalistic methodology (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). A relativist ontology assumes individuals develop subjective meanings of their experiences, and these meanings are multiple and complex. A subjectivist epistemology assumes these meanings are formed via interaction with others within the context of historical and cultural norms, and the researcher acknowledges how his or her own interpretation of the research emerges “from their own personal, cultural and historical experiences” (Creswell, 2007, p. 21). A naturalistic methodology assumes an examination of the research topic in the natural world, or the context in which the phenomenon is occurring using an emergent design. A defining feature of qualitative methods, emergent design simply implies that the research design (including sampling, data collection, and data analysis) evolves over the life of the study. Emergent design approach directs the researcher to whom should be interviewed next and what questions should be asked based on emergent and tentative findings of the simultaneous collection and analysis of data used to achieve the purpose of the research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Grounded Theory A grounded theory approach, in general, generates a patterned understanding of a human experience derived from data systematically collected and analyzed from a sample of individuals

23 who share the experience (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The data for this study are one-on-one interviews transcribed verbatim and demographic information reported by each participant. The interview text as data is analyzed into codes, concepts, and themes that form a theoretical understanding of how gender is manifested in the formation and maintenance of LAT relationships in later life. Since grounded theory is an effective approach to take for research that seeks to develop a theory in order to explain a process or to bring existing theories to the study of a new area of research (Strauss & Corbin, 1990; 1998), it is an optimal choice for this research. While research on gender, relationships and repartnering (including LAT in other countries) does show gender differences (Davidson, 2001, 2002; DeJong, 2002), findings are not often situated within theories that address gender and power imbalances in intimate relationships, or patterns of how men and women conform to and resist traditional gendered expectations in relationships. Furthermore, existing research on women in LAT relationships in other countries suggests that it is primarily women who drive the formation of LAT in later life as a way to avoid traditional gendered expectations present in earlier life stages (Karlsson & Borell, 2002). However, this study lacks an in-depth examination of the complexity of the historical, social, and cultural contexts that may contribute to women wanting to avoid traditional gendered expectations in later life, and a gendered understanding of men’s experience of formation and maintenance of LAT relationships is largely absent in existing literature. Grounded theory enables the generation of theory that is sensitive to issues of gender, power, and resistance while taking into account the unique personal biographies and the historical contexts of men and women who are in LAT relationships in later life. My own constructivist worldview influences my particular choice of constructivist grounded theory method. An assumption in the classic grounded theory approach by Glaser and Strauss (1967) is that theory emerges from the data independent of the researcher (Charmaz, 2006). Instead of subscribing to this more positivist world view, which assumes essential realities waiting to be discovered, a constructivist grounded theory approach assumes that the data reflect the existence of multiple realities, that these data are mutually constructed by both the research participant and the researcher, and the researcher’s thoughts and ideas are affected by simply entering the world of the research participant (Charmaz, 2002). This approach also recognizes the importance of the contexts, including the context of the interview, the life of the

24 participant, and the “contextual aspects of the study and research problem within the setting, society, and historical moment” (Charmaz, 2002, p. 679). Two important and interrelated features of an emergent design utilized in grounded theory research are theoretical sampling and maximum variation. Theoretical sampling is a particular approach to data collection for the purpose of theory building (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). An emerging theory, based on data collection and analysis, directs from whom to collect data in order to further develop said emerging theory. The object of theoretical sampling is twofold: “to elaborate and refine the categories [that constitute emerging theories]” and “to develop the properties of your category(ies) until no new properties emerge” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 96), or until saturation of categories occur, which signals that the categories can accommodate new findings and data collection can cease. Maximum variation is a type of theoretical sampling (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) in which the objective is to sample individuals who represent the wide range of experiences of the phenomenon under study (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994). Sampling in Grounded Theory Sampling is an important and essential feature of any qualitative or quantitative method. A grounded theory approach to sampling is emergent; some initial sampling decisions were chosen at the onset of the study (i.e., who to interview, interview questions), and were dictated by the type of research question I posed (e.g., to interview both men and women), whereas other decisions evolved over time once the study was underway. This evolution in sampling is an example of how a grounded theory methodological approach in research design is emergent; it was not possible at the onset of the study to decide all aspects of sampling. The four sampling decisions that need to be made include choosing a site or group to study, the type of data to collect, the length of time to devote to the study, and the number of observations needed to achieve the research goal (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Since my research involved exploring the experiences of men and women in later-life LAT relationships, I aimed to include individual men and women who were in this type of relationship in later life. The length of time to devote to the study and the number of observations (or participants and interviews) needed to achieve the research goals were interdependent; I set the goal of interviewing a minimum of ten men and ten women for a total of at least 20 participants. Creswell (2007) recommends a total of 20 to 30 individuals “in order to develop a well-saturated theory” (p. 126). Saturation occurs when new data collected from

25 participants can easily be accommodated by the categories already developed by the researcher to theoretically explain the phenomenon of interest (Dey, 1999); the data suggests no new categories. I primarily used two sampling strategies: convenience sampling and a purposive sample for maximum variation. The sample I used in this study is a convenience sample in that I recruited participants who were geographically located near me who I could easily interview in person. Purposeful sampling (as opposed to random sampling), combined with efforts to achieve maximum variation, allowed me the ability to collect in-depth information on the experience of LAT from a variety of men and women. Specifically, a purposeful sampling strategy allowed me to select information-rich cases which would help me to understand participants experiences of being in a LAT relationship (Patton, 1990). In other words, I purposefully selected cases in which participants were men and women 60 years of age or older, currently in a long-term steady relationship (for at least one year), not married, and not living together. I initially had the criterion that male and female partners in the same relationship would not be included. However, it became readily apparent that this was not feasible. I was contacted by primarily women who were in LAT relationships, and they had either already recruited their partners to participate, or their partners declined to be interviewed. In short, I essentially utilized the women in the study to recruit the men, and although I interviewed seven couples, my unit of analysis remained the experiences of individual men and women in LAT relationships. In order to achieve a diverse and heterogeneous sample, I used a maximum variation sampling technique as I collected information-rich cases. The goal of maximum variation sampling is to achieve some degree of variability on factors of interest in order to find similarities and differences across a diverse sample (Patton, 1996). I drew on the LAT, repartnering, and dating literatures, which reveal some of the variation that exists in these arrangements, such as differences based on gender, age, and the number and type of marital dissolutions experienced before commencing the LAT relationship (Stevens, 2001, 2002; Bulcroft et al., 1991; Moorman et al., 2006; Carr, 2004; de Jong; 2002). I also remained open to other variations in LAT couples as the study unfolded. For example, a number of my participants living in continuing care retirement communities discussed feelings of being “watched” by neighbors, which impacted their comfort level with overnight visits with their

26 partners. Therefore, I ensured my sample also included individuals who lived in age-integrated living communities. Recruitment My recruitment strategy began with my own wide social network, as anecdotal evidence indicated that many people know individuals who are in a LAT relationship. I provided my social network with recruitment flyers (see Appendix A) to share with the individuals they knew who were in a LAT relationship. At the same time, I posted recruitment flyers at multipurpose senior centers. These flyers resulted in the first 11 participants. Geographically, I began recruiting efforts in southwest Ohio and expanded my recruiting area to include counties in southeast Michigan and central Texas. Recruiting individuals from different geographical areas helped me to obtain a sufficient number of participants while also contributing to variation in the sampling technique described above (i.e., variation in gender, age, and number and type of marital dissolutions before commencing the LAT relationship). In addition to “word of mouth” recruiting and posting recruitment flyers at senior centers, I expanded my recruitment efforts by utilizing social media and an email list serve. I created a Facebook page for the study, which netted one participant, and eight additional participants were recruited through a family member who is part of an email list serve for a network of individuals in a Midwestern state who share a common interest in meditation. This choice in recruitment process was based on convenience. A family member emailed information about my study, including recruitment criteria, and directions on how to contact me. Although this family member did not meet the criteria for the study, he knew that many of the members of the list serve were over age 60 and unmarried. A note about terminology is in order here. Although I use the term “living apart together” throughout this study, this is not a term commonly used for this type of partnership in the U.S. This was immediately apparent as I began interviewing the men and women in LAT relationships; they acknowledged this lack in nomenclature for the type of relationship in which they found themselves. The lack of terminology created some challenges for recruitment. Because I was recruiting from the population of men and women born before 1950, I decided to use the term “going steady,” since this term implies a committed romantic relationship and was likely a term this population used when they were younger. Therefore, the recruitment material, consent form, and interview questions referred to more familiar terms such as “going steady” and “committed relationship.”

27 My final sample consisted of 13 women and 7 men (see Table 2 and Table 3). As illustrated in these tables, I selected cases based on the principles of maximum variation sampling. In other words, I recruited participants who were both similar and diverse on dimensions that were grounded in the literature and that emerged from these data. All of the male and female participants were White. Their ages ranged from 59 to 89 at the time of the first interviews, with average ages being 74 and 71 for the men and women, respectively. The sample of participants also had varied marital histories (never married, divorced, and widowed). There was minimal variation in the level of education or annual income among the participants, with the majority of the men and women in the sample having Master’s degrees and reporting an annual income of $50,000 or more. All of the men and the majority of the women had children, although three women never had children. Among my participants, the length of the shortest LAT relationship was one year, and the longest was 23 years. The average length of the LAT relationship for the men and women was around four and eight years, respectively. I explore the characteristics of the sample in more depth in the next chapter. Table 2 Abbreviated Summary of Female Participants

Pseudonym Age at Previous Highest Annual Number of interview Marital Level of Income Years in Status(es) Education LAT Relationship

Joyce 87 Widowed Graduate 50,000+ 5 – 9

Mary 85 Widowed Graduate 50,000+ 5 – 9

Betty 82 Divorced Some 50,000+ >9 college Widowed

Jean 74 Divorced Bachelors 30,000- <5 39,999 Widowed

Marion 73 Divorced Graduate 40,000- <5 49,999 Widowed

Susan 68 Divorced Some 50,000+ >9 college

Gloria 68 Divorced Graduate 40,000- 5 – 9 49,999 Divorced

28 Ellen 67 Divorced Graduate 15,000- <5 19,999

Kate 66 Divorced Graduate 30,000- <5 39,999

Fran 65 Widowed Graduate 30,000- >9 39,999

Sharon 64 Widowed Graduate 50,000+ <5

Barbara 62 Never Some 15,000- >9 Married college 19,999

Nancy 59 Divorced Bachelors 30,000- >9 39,999

Table 3 Abbreviated Summary of Male Participants

Pseudonym Age at Previous Highest Annual Number of interview Marital Level of Income Years in Status(es) Education LAT Relationship

Stanley 89 Widowed Graduate 50,000+ 5 – 9 Divorced

Jack 84 Widowed Bachelors 50,000+ <5

Mike 83 Divorced Bachelors 40,000- <5 49,999 Divorced

Dennis 69 Widowed Graduate 50,000+ <5

Thomas 65 Divorced Graduate 50,000+ 5 – 9 Divorced

Robert 65 Divorced Graduate 50,000+ <5 Divorced

Steve 62 Divorced Bachelors 10,000- >9 14,999

29 Data Collection Since the aim of my exploratory study was to construct a theory about a topic not yet addressed by research, I utilized a combination of open-ended and structured interview formats in addition to a demographic profile sheet. I developed an interview schedule with questions that explored what it was like to be in a LAT relationship in later life, how the individuals met their partner, how they refer to their relationship and to each other, what they do together, what they do apart, how relationships in this life stage compare to earlier stages, and what their hopes were for the future of the relationship, including the possibility of caregiving, marriage and cohabitation. Consistent with the inductive nature of developing a theory grounded in the data, I did not introduce the idea of gender or gender roles during any of the first interviews. Instead, I purposefully avoided direct questions about gender. When the participants brought up issues of gender or gender roles, I pursued their responses in more depth (see Appendix C for a copy of the interview schedule). The demographic profile sheet solicited quantifiable characteristics of the participant, such as current age, age at retirement, education level, profession, income, religiosity, number of children, and marriage or partnering history (see Appendix B for a copy of the profile sheet). Data were collected in three phases. In phase one, I conducted one-on-one interviews with each of the men and women interested in participating who also met the recruitment criteria. I offered to meet them somewhere or to come to their home to interview them. I conducted the first interviews with 19 of the participants in their own homes, and one was interviewed at my residence. Before beginning the interview, I obtained consent (see Appendix G). The consent form specified that I would ask questions about their relationship, and stipulated that they could refuse to answer any question, stop the interview at any time, and/or withdraw from the study. The form also explained that they would be assigned pseudonyms, but that their situation may be recognizable by people close to them. In other words, I could not assure total anonymity. The form outlined the steps I would take to secure the audio tapes and transcripts, including erasing the recordings after transcription and securing transcripts in a locked cabinet only accessible by the researcher. For those men and women in the study whose partner was also part of the study (seven of the women were partnered with the seven men in the study), I followed the same process discussed above, but with added instructions. I assured the men and women who were coupled that I would not share what I learned in their interview with their partner. In addition, I

30 instructed the first partner I interviewed from the couple to not share the questions I asked or the content of our interview until after I had interviewed the other. These couples’ interviews occurred in their respective homes without the other partner being present. These instructions were designed to ensure that all participants came to the interview free to talk about their experiences, and without preparing their answers ahead of time. Once consent was given, I began each tape-recorded interview by asking about the language they use for the relationship. I then gathered the demographic data in the profile sheet. I then proceeded with the core questions in the interview guide. The interviews lasted one to two hours each. I transcribed verbatim eleven of the recorded interviews myself and hired a professional transcriptionist to transcribe the other nine. Pseudonyms were assigned to each participant as well as any other significant people they discussed during the interview. In phase two of data collection, I conducted second interviews with all the participants via email or telephone requesting an update of their relationship (see Appendix D). By this time, initial open coding and focused coding had led me to emerging categories that were beginning to give shape to a theoretical understanding of maintaining LAT relationships among my participants. One category, “deciding against marriage and/or living together,” was a common theme that emerged from the interviews with both men and women; maintaining the LAT relationship depended upon participants not pursuing or having to pursue living together and/or marrying. In other words, the maintenance of the relationship was ongoing, and it could potentially change for some of the individuals I interviewed. I utilized theoretical sampling or the process of what Charmaz (2006) describes as “seeking and collecting pertinent data to elaborate and refine categories in your emerging theory” (p. 96). Therefore, in the second phase of interviews I asked whether the men and women were still with their LAT partner, had the same arrangement (still together but not married or living together), or had experienced changing circumstances in their lives (such as housing, health, finances, or family) that had caused them to alter the living arrangement, either permanently or temporarily. This line of questioning enabled me to identify conditions that could diminish physical and financial independence (which are necessary to maintain LAT), and to learn how the couples navigated those changes. In phase three, I conducted third interviews with ten participants who had described either permanent or temporary changes in their arrangement between the first and second interviews. The timing of these third interviews ranged from 8 to 26 months after the first

31 interview. The participants with whom I conducted third interviews included one man and one woman who ended up marrying each other, two women and one man who had increased the amount of time they were living together, two women and one man who had experienced acute caregiving situations, and one woman and one man who had a change in residence that eliminated the possibility of living together. I followed the same consent process described in phase one, including the additional instructions for couples. These third interviews focused on the exploring how and why the relationship had changed (see Appendix E). I also used this opportunity to discuss the initial concepts and themes that had emerged from the first interviews (see Appendix F), which served two purposes: to co-construct with participants the theoretical understanding of the formation and maintenance of LAT relationships, and to member check, a validation strategy that optimizes the accuracy and credibility of the findings (Creswell, 2007). Member checking involves discussing the initial findings to see if the concepts and themes reflect the participants' meanings and experiences. These third interviews lasted 30 minutes to one hour each, were audio recorded, and were transcribed verbatim. Data Analysis The grounded theory method requires continuous data analysis. Based on the analysis, I focused or narrowed the topics about which I asked participants, with the goal of gathering data that would help to shape a theoretical explanation of my research question (Charmaz, 2002, 2006). I continued interviewing individuals in LAT relationships until my analysis reached saturation, that is, until the data suggested that the interviews were no longer yielding innovative contributions to the emerging theoretical understanding of gender and LAT in later life (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Although the idea of saturation is often interpreted as simply finding the same repetitive pattern in the data (Charmaz, 2006), a more accurate way of understanding saturation is to develop the sample and collect data until the categories created that helped to theoretically explain the ways in which gender is manifested in LAT relationships could adequately accommodate new data (Dey, 1999). Data analysis began with participant interviews, proceeded to initial coding of the transcripts by hand, then focused coding using the qualitative computer software ATLAS.ti, and, finally, theoretical coding. Influenced heavily by the methodology of Charmaz (2002, 2006), initial coding involved assigning codes to segments of data that represent as closely as possible the expressions of the participants. In the focused coding phase, I identified the most frequent and salient codes that

32 emerged in the initial phase, allowing me to move from simply labeling or naming data to developing categories (Charmaz, 2002, 2006). In theoretical coding, I identified the significant categories developed in focused coding and analyzed the relationships between the categories. Theoretical coding turns categories into a theoretical understanding of a phenomenon. Memo- writing was an integral part of the entire data analysis process. Beginning with participant interviews, through the initial coding phase, and continuing through focused and theoretical coding, memo-writing allowed me to make comparisons between data, codes, and categories (Charmaz, 2006). The protocols of each of these techniques are covered in greater depth below. Each transcript was printed, and the interviews were initially coded without the use of technological devices or software. I performed line-by-line coding, making note of similarities and differences between participants, and as my sample grew, I identified common incidents or situations, which I coded, continually comparing the experiences and perspectives of participants to one another. This comparison occurred at not only an individual level (comparing one participant to all the others), but also between the women and men and the older participants and younger participants. This constant comparison method, essential to grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), helps to build analytic distinctions that can then be used to make comparisons at each step of analysis (Charmaz, 2006), not only during initial coding. Relevant to this study, the constant comparison method also helped to identify differences and similarities related to gender and age, an important step in developing the initial themes and concepts relevant to answering my research question. For example, a concept that emerged from the constant comparison method includes the topic of overnight visits, cohort differences, and changing societal norms surrounding sex and marriage. Many of the women and some of the men older than 70 years of age expressed feeling uncomfortable with or ambivalent about overnight visits due to their moral belief that sex outside of marriage is wrong. Their younger counterparts in the study (those under 70), however, never expressed an aversion to having sex outside of marriage. Therefore, achieving maximum variation required inclusion of both younger and older men and women in LAT relationships. In the next phase of analysis I identified the codes and themes common across participant groups (women and men, young and old) and began the process of focused coding. Focused coding goes beyond coding line-by-line, and instead is more selective and conceptual in nature (Glaser, 1978). In this phase, I utilized the computer software program Atlas.ti, a data

33 management software program designed to organize qualitative data (text). Atlas.ti allowed me to more efficiently and thoroughly identify and organize incidents or situations from transcripts using my most salient codes (i.e., codes that were analytically significant to answering my research question). Charmaz (2006) describes focused coding as “…using the most significant and/or frequent…codes to sift through larger amounts of data...[requiring] decisions about which initial codes make the most analytic sense to categorize your data incisively and completely” (p. 57). Once I identified and recorded the focused codes using Atlas.ti, I continued to compare the concepts and themes among the women and men separately, between the men and women, and between the older and younger participants. An example of a focused code from both the men and women, regardless of age, was “limitation on autonomy” in earlier-life marriages. However, a closer look at how men and women described this phenomenon revealed a significant gendered difference that emerged as one aspect of my grounded theory. While the men discussed having to put their personal interests aside for the family, women talked about the sacrifice of self or identity, and the responsibility of putting family members’ needs before her own. Theoretical coding, the final type of coding I utilized, required that I take the categories or concepts I developed in the focus coding stage and begin identifying and specifying the relationships between them (Charmaz, 2006). In addition to identifying how the focused codes are related, this step in coding also begins to move my “analytic story in a theoretical direction” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 63). The stage of theoretical coding included the writing and rewriting of my findings chapter, itself an interpretive process. In addition, analysis was not conducted in isolation; I was continually in contact with my dissertation committee members, talking through the concepts emerging from the data, and how the concepts were forming a theoretical understanding of how gender is manifested in LAT relationships. Importantly, this evolving nature of the analysis led me to revisit existing literature and engage with new literature, incorporating available theoretical frameworks to conceptualize my findings as well as identifying the gap in available theory to explain aspects of my findings. In that sense, the literature review is an on-going process that shapes and is shaped by the theoretical phase of analysis. One example of how I used theoretical coding involves the evolution of the previously mentioned focused code, “limitation on autonomy.” Originally, this quality that both the men and women reported earlier in life was simply treated as an example of “doing gender” for both

34 men and women (i.e., men prioritizing their breadwinner roles, and women prioritizing their role as nurturer). However, this idea of “limitation on autonomy” is also an aspect of the institution of marriage as an interdependent and integrated couple identity, and the opposite trait (making self a priority) is a quality of individualistic relationship. Therefore, while doing gender is useful in understanding how the men and women conformed to gender roles and expectations earlier in life, it goes beyond that to include how they were also doing family by maintaining marriages with interdependent qualities. In addition, I demonstrate that, by forming and maintaining an intimate relationship with individualistic qualities, LAT couples are redoing family (a new theoretical understanding of LAT in later life). This process demonstrates the value of theoretical coding. According to Birks and Mills (2011), “[t]hrough applying the work of others to your storyline, you are able to augment, support and validate existing theories and in so doing explain and reinforce the value of your own contribution” (p. 125). Throughout the analysis, I utilized memo-writing to record and develop my thoughts, ideas, and analytical insights on the various concepts that emerged from the analyses. In short, memo-writing helped me to remain close to my analysis and facilitated an increased level of abstraction in my thoughts and ideas about the data (Charmaz, 2006). Memo-writing also facilitated my evaluation of the empirical evidence used to support my emerging categories and theoretical codes, while helping me to identify gaps in the analysis. Researcher Perspective The purpose of qualitative research is to study the nature and meaning of human experience. However, a constructivist nature or meaning is multiple (i.e., it varies from person to person and within each person, as a person may attach multiple meanings to one experience) and jointly constructed between the researcher and participants. In order to optimally deal with these dynamic aspects of studying a human experience phenomenon, the researcher is the best tool to collect and analyze the data. This “human as instrument” concept means that the researcher with all of his or her “skills, experience, background, and knowledge as well as biases” (Maykut & Morehouse, p. 26) is the main vehicle for data collection and analysis. For this reason, it is essential to discuss my research perspective; it influences all aspects of my research study, including my general interest in the topic of gender and intimate relationships, why I ask my particular research question, the emergent questions and paths of each interview, and my approach to data analysis. In other words, my research perspective permeates all aspects of this

35 study. Situating myself as the researcher (or human as instrument) includes making visible how my personal experiences have sensitized me to the topic of gender and relationships and the theoretical frameworks that make up my worldview. My distilled experiences with gender, aging, and relationships unfolded while growing up in a White working-class family in the 1960s and 1970s. My mother came of age in the 1950s, a time steeped in a traditional division of gender roles; men were breadwinners and women were primarily homemakers, including being a wife and mother in charge of the domestic sphere of the household. This traditional gendered division of roles was present in my own household growing up, but it was an unhappy division. I perceived that my mother resented her work in the domestic sphere and my ’s lack of interest in domestic life. My mother divorced my father after 16 years of marriage. She remarried a few years later, after losing a relatively high-paying job that allowed her to support my brother and me, a marriage I am not fully convinced would have happened had she not lost her job. After her second divorce, I witnessed my mother in a LAT relationship for many years when she was in her 60s and 70s. I observed some of the ways in which her relationship conformed to and resisted traditional gender ideology. She expressed enjoyment of the autonomy of living alone, but liked sharing her life with her LAT partner on weekends. She liked cooking meals for him on the weekends, but talked about how she would not want to do it full-time. Both she and her LAT partner were in agreement that neither wanted to be married at this point in their lives. I am sensitive to how the traditional division of labor in heterosexual relationships can place women in dangerously dependent and undervalued positions. In addition, although I have witnessed social transformations, such as Title IX (which prohibited discrimination based on sex in federally-funded institutions), a growing number of women pursuing higher education and working full-time, and more couples delaying marriage and delaying or forsaking having children, I do believe that the feminist revolution has been an incomplete one, or what Hochschild (1989) referred to as the “stalled revolution.” My perception is that, in general, women have simply taken on more roles, such as breadwinner, while men’s roles have not changed at the same pace. These feelings make me question the “usefulness” of marriage, especially when women are beyond wanting to have a family, or if they can financially support themselves. These “suspect” feelings about marriage certainly influence my thoughts about LAT relationships; I intuitively understand why they might be desirable, especially in later life, and

36 especially for women, who decade-after-decade have performed traditionally undervalued feminine roles in relationships. I perceive LAT as a potential site to help transform or circumvent traditional division of gender roles in intimate relationships. It is also clear how my personal experiences have not only led me to my research topic, but have influenced my examination of the topic through theoretical lenses that address issues of power and resistance. Observing my mother in her relationships, and understanding her experience from a life course perspective, heightened my sensitivity to how opportunities to conform to and resist traditional gender ideology are shaped by a number of influences, such as historical context and the prevailing social and cultural norms surrounding gender roles, life stage, and family roles. Studying both gerontology and feminist theories and methods in graduate school contributed to my being sensitive to and critical of issues of gender inequality and curious about socio-cultural changes that help to challenge traditional notions of what is considered feminine and masculine. Specifically, social construction feminism, and theories of power and resistance such as the concept of doing gender, help to form my world view that conceptualizes gender as a fluid social location in which traditional performance often places women in a disadvantaged position. Yet, opportunities exist in certain contexts throughout the life course to deviate (via resistance, undoing, or redoing) from what it considered traditional roles or behaviors for both men and women. These personal experiences and observations, combined with my theoretical course of study, have inspired my research question and inevitably influenced my interviewing approach and my interpretation of the LAT experience of the men and women in my study.

37 CHAPTER THREE: FINDINGS In exploring how gender is manifested in the formation and maintenance LAT relationships, three distinct phases of the participants’ lives could be identified: preformation, formation, and maintenance (see Figure 1). The distinctions between phases were based on the participants’ individual histories in intimate relationships, including their current LAT relationship. The preformation stage provides the foundation for understanding the historical context and the personal biographies of the participants’ lives prior to the formation of their LAT union. The men and most of the women in the study describe an earlier life stage historically dominated by doing gender and doing family, evidenced by their involvement in nuclear family life reflecting traditional specialized roles for men and women (i.e., breadwinner and homemaker), or what Smith (1993) calls the Standard North American Family (SNAF). In addition, these men and women describe marriages characterized by interdependency and an integrated couple identity (versus an individualized marriage) reflected in the compulsory nature of marriage and prioritization of family over personal autonomy. At the same time, some women interviewed did not follow this same path to marriage and family. These exceptions reflect the changing social structures that supported women’s increasing education and labor force participation and a growing cultural acceptance of women having personal biographies that varied from the SNAF lifestyle. The second stage, LAT relationship formation, occurs in a life stage no longer dominated by doing family, but by qualities of what I call “redoing” family. This redoing of family means the older men and women are no longer focused on doing family in the SNAF form; instead of prioritizing families and marriages over self, the men and women discuss the freedom they have to prioritize themselves in this life stage, or to be more individualistic. In addition to redoing family, men appear to be doing gender by creating a gendered dynamic with their LAT partners as their sole confidants and social connectors. Women, on the other hand, are redoing gender by forming a relationship that allows them the ability to maintain their responsibilities and interests apart from their LAT partner as well as to avoid the traditional gendered female expectations of housework and caregiving. Furthermore, I explore how the men and women essentially form a LAT arrangement by rejecting the institutions of marriage and cohabitation, and instead, entering a relationship lacking clear structure: one without normative roles and responsibilities, and even without a

38 name in U.S. culture. Therefore, I introduce the idea of how this lack of social structure creates opportunities for men and women to conduct themselves differently in a LAT arrangement, allowing them to maintain an individualized relationship or to redo family in later life. In the third phase – maintenance – I show how the men and women in LAT relationships continue to redo family by maintaining an individualistic intimate relationship that combines both autonomy and companionship in later life. I also explore how choosing a LAT relationship allows women to redo gender, or to avoid conforming to traditional gendered expectations that were present in earlier life relationships (i.e., marriage), and at the same time, are maximizing relationship satisfaction by minimizing doing gender. The men, on the other hand, exhibit a unique pattern of conformance and resistance to gendered expectations surrounding the breadwinner role in relationships.

39 Figure 1 Gender, Life Course, and Living Apart Together in Later Life

REDOING GENDER REDOING GENDER, REDOING FAMILY REDOING GENDER - Maintaining separateness to pursue - Remaining unmarried individual interests and - Avoiding being submissive to male - Marrying “off time” responsibilities - Maximizing relationship satisfaction by - Not having children - Minimizing gendered expectations and minimizing doing gender - Women as breadwinners roles inherent in doing family in a Women SNAF way REDOING FAMILY REDOING FAMILY DOING GENDER, DOING FAMILY - Less focus on SNAF lifestyle - Individualistic intimate relationship - Focus on nuclear family life (SNAF) - Making self a priority: individualism and o Prioritizing personal autonomy - Strong gendered expectations value of time alone and apart o Maintaining separate finances Women - Gender-linked traits desirable - LAT as an individualistic, non- and households and Men - Interdependency and integrated couple institutionalized and un-named intimate o Preserving the ease to end identity relationship in U.S. and source of care and relationship o Compulsory nature of companionship marriage o Prioritizing family over DOING GENDER/ REDOING GENDER personal autonomy DOING GENDER Men - Public display of paying for everyday - Expectations for women to be sole expenses confidants and social connectors - Splitting expenses in public and private

Preformation Formation Maintenance Men and women’s earlier lives were focused on doing gender1 Men and women are redoing family by no longer maintaining a In the maintenance stage of LAT the men and women are and doing family in a SNAF manner, with strong gendered family characterized by SNAF, and instead, are being more redoing family by maintaining an individualistic intimate expectations and desirability of gender-linked traits in their individualistic. At the same time, men are doing gender by relationship. The women are redoing gender by actively spouses. Their marriages were more interdependent and expecting female partners to be sole confidant and social connector, resisting gendered cultural expectations while maximizing integrated than individualized. However, there were also and women are redoing gender by forming a relationship that relationship satisfaction by minimizing having to do gender. instances of women redoing gender and redoing family. accommodates individual responsibilities and social networks while The men in the study preserve the appearance of doing gender minimizing the gendered expectations and roles inherent in doing by displaying the breadwinner role. Preformation life course influences family in a SNAF way. Both men and women recognize their Maintenance life course influences - Increasing education and career opportunities for relationship lacks a name, which facilitates redoing family by men women and women maintaining an individualized relationship in later life. - Financial independence of women - Opportunities for women to form personal biographies Finally, the LAT relationships are valuable to the men and women - Historical and cultural gendered expectations in outside social norms around marriage and family roles in the study as important sources of care and companionship in later marriages - Increasing acceptability and legitimacy of divorce and life. cohabitation Formation life course influences

- Financial independence of women - Personal biographies of marital dissolutions - Life stage 1I use the terms doing and redoing gender to reflect ways in which men and women conform and/or do not conform to gender cultural norms and expectations 40

HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND PREFORMATION STAGE In this section, I explore how gender is manifested in the earlier lives of the men and women in the study. First, I describe the participants’ marital and family histories, education and employment histories, and their LAT relationships, highlighting the life course characteristics that have influenced preferences for gender performance and family formation (see Table 4 and Table 5 for the characteristics of the women and men in the study). I analyze the qualities of the participants’ pre-formation experiences in Figure 2 marriage, family, education, and employment Gender and Preformation of LAT Relationships to determine individual orientation toward traditional and non-traditional gender roles REDOING GENDER, REDOING FAMILY - Remaining unmarried earlier in life (see Table 6). Second, I describe - Marrying “off time” - Not having children the model of how gender is manifested in the - Women as breadwinners Women earlier lives of the participants (see Figure 2). DOING GENDER, DOING FAMILY This life phase is characterized by both doing - Focus on nuclear family life (SNAF) - Strong gendered expectations gender and doing SNAF family by Women - Gender-linked traits desirable and Men - Interdependency and integrated couple establishing marriage and family life while identity o Compulsory nature of performing traditional gender roles. I also marriage o Prioritizing family over describe the significance placed on masculine Men personal autonomy and feminine traits of spouses earlier in life as the men and women were choosing mates. I explore how the marriages of both the men and women reflect qualities of interdependency and integration, and how doing family meant prioritizing the family unit and limiting their autonomy to pursue personal interests and identity. Description of Participants and Salient Life Course Influences Age, Gender, and Cohort My aim was to recruit men and women 60 years of age and older who were in LAT relationships for at least one year. My final sample consisted of 13 women and 7 men. The age of the women at the time of the interview ranged from 59 to 87 (average age 71), and the age of the men at the time of the interview ranged from 62 to 89 (average age 74). The 30-year difference between the youngest participant and the oldest participant reflects the variety of

41 different age cohorts who engage in LAT relationships during later life. Within my sample I identified two “waves” of generations: men and women (currently age 73 to 89, n=9) who experienced their first marriages after the end of World War II (1945 – 1955) or the “earlier wave,” and those (currently 59 to 69, n=11) who married for the first time between 1964 and 1972, or the “later wave.” The first marriages of the earlier wave male participants commenced when they were in their late 20s (average age 28). With the exception of one woman who married for the first time in her 40s, the earlier-wave female participants tended to marry early (average age of 20). While a few of these marriages dissolved through divorce, death of a spouse was the more common way for the earlier-wave marriages to end. Interestingly, though most of the earlier-wave men and women remained married until they were widowed, not all the earlier-wave women married early and had life-long marriages. The two earlier-wave women who married youngest (age 17 and 18, respectively) experienced the earliest in the sample (in 1955 and 1965). Both of these women experienced shorter first marriages (10 and 11 years), and longer (33 and 39 years) that eventually ended in widowhood. Another earlier-wave female participant had a very successful career and married “off time” when compared to her cohort; she married for the first time in her early 40s and never had children. The minimal variation in timing of marriage (especially for men) reflects the strength of conformity to traditional gender ideology and to the pursuit of SNAF earlier in life. However, the existence of some variation from these marriage and family norms for women suggests changing social structures and cultural practices that supported women exercising agency to resist traditional gender and family norms, by either ending marriages during a time when divorce was uncommon or by devoting their earlier life to a career instead of marriage and family. The later-wave cohort (those married between 1964 and 1972) had similar marriage patterns to those in the earlier wave; most married for the first time in their 20s. The average age at first marriage for the men and women in the later wave is 24 and 23, respectively. What is striking about the later wave is the pattern of divorce and age at divorce. Whereas the earlier- wave participants’ first divorces occurred when the women were in their late 20s (which were followed by long-term remarriages that ended in widowhood), the majority of the eleven later- wave men and women divorced their first spouses (n=7) in their 40s, with the majority of the divorces occurring in the 1980s (n=5). While the majority of the early-wave men and women

42 married young, remained married and had children, there were more deviations from the “norm” in the later-wave cohort. One woman never married nor had children, one woman married a man ten years her junior and was the breadwinner in the relationship, and another woman became the breadwinner in her family when her husband became disabled. These variations suggest that although the pressure to conform to traditional gender and family norms remained strong for this later wave (evidenced by the pattern of early life marriages with children, or SNAF), a number of women in the study were redoing gender and redoing family by acting outside these norms, remaining unmarried or enacting more of a “masculine” or breadwinner role in their marriages. Education and Careers The majority of the sample has relatively high education and income. This finding is not unique; recent studies on LAT in Canada and Australia as well as dating in the U.S. showed similar trends (Lyssens-Danneboom & Mortelmans, 2013; Funk & Kobayashi, 2014; Brown & Shinohara, 2014). All of the participants have at least some college education; the majority of the women and all of the men possessed at least a bachelor’s degree, and 12 of the 20 participants earned a graduate degree. Participants reported their annual income within set response categories (see Appendix B), and the mode was $50,000 or more for both the men and women in the sample. However, there are two women and one man who reported incomes below $20,000/year, and the two lower-income-earning women reported they were still working. Seven of the 13 women in the sample retired from professional careers (mostly from teaching or nursing, historically common professions for women). While 4 of the 12 women who had been previously married reported being a homemaker for parts of their marriages, 3 of the 12 were the breadwinners in their marriages. The men in the sample, on the other hand, had more homogeneous work histories. For the most part, the men were the major breadwinners in their marriages, and four of the seven men reported that their first did not work outside the home after having children. I utilize these data on employment to determine my participants’ orientation toward and experience of traditional and non-traditional gender norms based on their experience of breadwinner, homemaker, and parental roles performed in earlier-life marriage(s) and whether they retired from paid professions. (See Table 7 for the measurement of these qualities). In addition, these data show the majority of women in the study had active careers, which allowed them to achieve a certain level of financial independence. Importantly, without

43 this financial independence, a LAT relationship would be more difficult to maintain later in life, because financial need could very well motivate older adults to cohabit or marry instead of LAT. Marital and Family History The homogeneity of the male participants is not only evident in their breadwinning roles, but also in their marital and family histories. All of the men have been married at least once and have between two and five children (mode of three). The women, on the other hand, have much more diverse marital and family histories. Although ten of the thirteen women had children (between one and four children, with a mode of two) and experienced first marriages that commenced in their 20s, the other three participants had very different experiences. One woman never wanted to marry or have children, but instead had two significant long-term LAT relationships over her lifetime. The remaining two women had personal biographies that deviated significantly from the traditional path of marrying young and having a family. One woman from the earlier wave was very active in her career and married for the first time in her early 40s; she became the major breadwinner in the marriage and never had children. She subsequently experienced a divorce, a remarriage, and eventually widowhood. Another female participant (who also never wanted children) married and divorced earlier in life to a man ten years her junior, and performed the primary breadwinner role until she divorced her spouse, then remained single until meeting her LAT partner in later life. These deviations from doing gender and doing family in a SNAF way are made possible because of a greater cultural acceptance of women pursuing personal life biographies different from the norm. Instead of pursuing and devoting a life to a SNAF form, these women remained unmarried and childfree for most, if not all, of their lives. Marrying later and never having children also demonstrates women’s growing control of the timing of child birth via birth control. In short, doing family in a SNAF manner may have been the goal for the men and most of the women in the study, but some women deviated from this cultural norm. As mentioned earlier, divorce was a common experience in the lives of both the male and female participants in the study, and especially for the men and women in the later wave. Eight of the twelve first marriages of the women ended in divorce, and four of those women experienced second marriages after divorce. Of the seven men’s first marriages, four ended in divorce. Three of those men remarried and experienced the dissolution of those marriages as well. Understanding the historical context in which these patterns of marital dissolutions are

44 occurring is important, and includes the changing cultural norms and structure (i.e., the legal system) that contributed to a legitimacy and an acceptability of ending a marriage through divorce. This new social structure legitimated divorce and diminished women’s need for men as breadwinners. A growing cultural acceptance of women acting outside of gender and family norms allows them to exercise the agency to form new relationships, such as LAT, without traditional gendered expectations often present in earlier life marriages and the SNAF form. The LAT Relationship Among my participants, the length of the shortest current LAT relationship was one year, and the longest was 23 years. The average length of the LAT relationship was around eight years for women and about four years for men. The average age at which the LAT relationship commenced was 62 for women (age range 44 to 79) and 69 for the men (age range 52 to 83). Thus, later-life LAT relationships are sometimes ones that formed during earlier life stages and then continued into later life. This is the case for three of the female participants. They began their LAT relationship when they were in their mid-40s (two were previously divorced and one was never married). The LAT relationships that commenced in mid-life and continued into later life proceeded through traditional stages that might have led to marriage for the two previously married women. These two women discussed going through an early phase of being engaged to be married, with the traditional approach of the man “asking for her hand” in marriage, and then both essentially “growing out of the phase” and realizing that the LAT arrangement suits them best. This finding suggests that the strength of the cultural norm of marriage may be stronger earlier in life, and then tends to weaken as the men and women age and establish a LAT relationship arrangement. Table 4 Extended Summary of Female Participants (from oldest to youngest)

Pseudonym Age at Age at first Number Previous Years in Highest Annual Empl. Years in interview marriage of Marital Previous Level of Income Status LAT (Year of (Year) Children Status Marriage Educ. (in Relationship thousands) Birth) (Age at dissolution)

Joyce 87 (1924) 22 (1946) 3 Widowed 42 (64) Graduate 50+ Retired 5 – 9

Mary 85 (1924) 25 (1949) 2 Widowed 50 (75) Graduate 50+ Retired 5 – 9

Betty 82 (1927) 18 (1945) 4 Divorced 10 (28) Some 50+ Retired >9 college Widowed 39 (71)

45 Jean 74 (1936) 41 (1977) 0 Divorced 22 (63) Bachelors 30 - 39 Working <5 (PT) Widowed 8 (71)

Marion 73 (1937) 17 (1954) 3 Divorced 11 (28) Graduate 40 - 49 Working <5 (PT) Widowed 33 (65)

Susan 68 (1943) 22 (1965) 2 Divorced 20 (42) Some 50+ Working >9 college

Gloria 68 (1943) 26 (1969) 1 Divorced 7 (33) Graduate 40 - 49 Working 5 – 9 (PT) Divorced 11 (57)

Ellen 67 (1942) 31 (1973) 0 Divorced 10 (41) Graduate 15 - 19 Working <5

Kate 66 (1945) 22 (1967) 2 Divorced 25 (47) Graduate 30 - 39 Retired <5

Fran 65 (1946) 19 (1965) 2 Widowed 30 (49) Graduate 30 - 39 Retired >9

Sharon 64 (1947) 21 (1968) 3 Widowed 41 (62) Graduate 50+ Working <5

Barbara 62 (1949) n/a 0 Never - Some 15 - 19 Working >9 Married college

Nancy 59 (1951) 21 (1972) 1 Divorced 23 (44) Bachelors 30 - 39 Working >9

Table 5 Extended Summary of Male Participants (from oldest to youngest)

Pseudonym Age at Age at first Number Previous Years in Highest Annual Empl. Years in interview marriage of Marital Previous Level of Income Status LAT (Year of (Year) Children Status Marriage Educ. (in Relationship Birth) (Age at thousands) dissolution)

Stanley 89 (1921) 26 (1947) 4 Widowed 40 (66) Graduate 50+ Retired 5 – 9 Divorced 13 (80)

Jack 84 (1926) 29 (1955) 3 Widowed 50 (79) Bachelors 50+ Retired <5

Mike 83 (1927) 28 (1955) 3 Divorced 24 (52) Bachelors 40 - 49 Retired <5 Divorced 23(75)

Dennis 69 (1942) 22 (1964) 2 Widowed 43 (65) Graduate 50+ Retired <5

Thomas 65 (1946) 18 (1964) 5 Divorced 22 (40) Graduate 50+ Working 5 – 9 Divorced 15 (60)

Robert 65 (1945) 26 (1971) 4 Divorced 14 (40) Graduate 50+ Working <5 Divorced 12 (63)

Steve 62 (1949) 30 (1972) 3 Divorced 15 (45) Bachelors 10 - 14 Retired >9

46

Table 6: Traditional/Nontraditional Orientation of Female and Male Participants

Women Age at Education Marital Number Employment Traditional Gender interview History of History Orientation in Early Pseudonym (Year of Children Life Birth)

Joyce 87 (1924) Graduate Widowed 3 Worked first 20 Traditional years of marriage; then caregiver to mother

Mary 85 (1924) Graduate Widowed 2 Retired Traditional/Nontraditional

Betty 82 (1927) Some college Divorced 4 Retired Traditional/Nontraditional Widowed Jean 74 (1936) Bachelors Divorced 0 Retired; work PT Nontraditional Widowed

Marion 73 (1937) Graduate Divorced 3 Retired; work PT Traditional/Nontraditional Widowed

Susan 68 (1943) Some college Divorced 2 Working Traditional

Gloria 68 (1943) Graduate (2) Divorced 1 Retired; work PT Nontraditional Divorced

Ellen 67 (1942) Graduate Divorced 0 Working; Nontraditional breadwinner

Kate 66 (1945) Graduate Divorced 2 Retired; Traditional

Fran 65 (1946) Graduate Widowed 2 Retired; Nontraditional breadwinner

Sharon 64 (1947) Graduate Widowed 3 Working Traditional

Barbara 62 (1949) Some college Never 0 Working Nontraditional married

Nancy 59 (1951) Bachelors Divorced 1 Working Nontraditional

Men

Stanley 89 (1921) Graduate Widowed 4 Retired; Traditional breadwinner Divorced

Jack 84 (1926) Bachelors Widowed 3 Retired; Traditional

47 breadwinner

Mike 83 (1927) Bachelors Divorced 3 Retired; Traditional breadwinner Divorced

Dennis 69 (1942) Graduate Widowed 2 Retired; Traditional breadwinner Thomas 65 (1946) Graduate Divorced 3 Working; Traditional/Nontraditional Divorced 2 (one at breadwinner/dual home) career

Robert 65 (1945) Graduate Divorced 3 Working; Traditional breadwinner Divorced 1 (at home)

Steve 62 (1949) Bachelors Divorced 3 Retired; Nontraditional unsuccessful breadwinner

Doing Gender and Doing Family: SNAF Lifestyle As described in the previous section, all of the men and most of the women in the sample married for the first time and started families when they were in their 20s. The majority of these relationships reflected qualities of a nuclear family life, performing traditional gendered roles (i.e., breadwinner and homemaker), or what Smith (1993) calls the Standard North American Family (SNAF). The men’ and women’s accounts of “doing gender” within this family form show the importance of masculine and feminine qualities when choosing their marital mates, as well as how they performed specialized gendered roles in these marriages. They also describe how their earlier marriages reflect qualities of interdependence and integration (instead of individualization), evidenced by the compulsory nature of marriage when they were younger and how their autonomy to pursue personal interests and individual identities was limited by the priority placed on family. The women and men in the study express both an implicit awareness of societal and cultural norms on their younger selves to act in gendered ways within their families as well as an explicit awareness of how traditional gendered expectations of masculine and feminine qualities were more attractive to them earlier in life. Kate (67, traditional, divorced, two children) expresses this awareness of gendered norms when she points out how roles in earlier life are more defined compared to later life:

48 So, I would say liberation from definition of roles and norms, and women’s roles being more defined and repressive, one might say in some ways, and here you are [reacting to the freedom in current life stage]. Holy smokes! Wow!

Similarly, Steve (63, nontraditional, divorced, three children) expresses an awareness of what was expected from him as a husband when he discusses his perceived inadequacy at being the financial provider in his previous marital relationship. “I think she wanted to have a more conventional life style, with a solid income and I was trying to do that but I wasn’t very good at it. I wasn’t very successful at being a regular guy.” When discussing desirable traits of their partners earlier in life, the men and women in the study often pointed to being more attracted to traditional masculine and feminine qualities in their earlier mates. I asked participants to reflect on whether they would have been attracted to their current LAT partner earlier in life. Many of the women mentioned the importance of being a good financial provider and/or father when reflecting on whether their current LAT partner would have been a suitable partner for them earlier in life. Nancy (59, traditional/nontraditional, divorced, one child) says, “…but had I made a list back then of what I wanted for qualities, it would have been financial security with anybody.” Fran (65, nontraditional, two children) mentions how her LAT partner would not have been a good match for her earlier in life. Despite the fact that she became the major breadwinner in her family due to her husband becoming disabled, she says: Um…he would not have been stable enough, he would not have been enough of an economic provider, he doesn’t maintain well enough, maintenance…I’m a maintenance kind of person. And if something’s going wrong, he’ll wait until the, like, the last minute to figure it out. Big difference. If you’re raising children, something like that could drive you crazy, because it’s not just maintenance of things, it’s maintenance of people. And, I wouldn’t have felt that the children would have been as secure if he was the father.

Desirable qualities, such as physical attractiveness and personality traits, was another theme mentioned by the participants when asked about possible attraction to their LAT partner earlier in life. Susan (68, traditional/nontraditional, divorced, two children) points out, “No, I wouldn’t have been attracted to him at all. I probably would have thought he was a nice guy and

49 everything, but I always wanted somebody taller than me…” The men, on the other hand, tended to comment in general ways about their LAT partner’s physical attractiveness. Dennis (69, traditional, two children) and his LAT partner originally met as co-workers when they were both married. When asked if he would have been interested in her when he was in his 20s, he said, “Absolutely…I [was a married man]. But it still didn’t stop me from recognizing she is a nice, quality, good looking person.” Some of the men also discussed feminine personality qualities they find attractive in their mates. For example, Mike (84, traditional, divorced twice, three children) mentions his partner’s caring and non-argumentative nature, while Stanley (89, traditional, widowed and divorced, four children) talks about how his partner never speaks ill of anyone and is very accommodating of his wants and needs. For many of the men and women in the study, their earlier marriage was often structured around a traditional performance of gendered roles, and/or commenced under conditions that could foster this division of roles. Some of the female participants and most of the male participants’ wives did not work, reduced their time spent (or ceased) working when children arrived, or took on part-time work to support the educational endeavors of their husbands. Dennis (69, traditional, widowed, two children) says, “I worked and she was a homemaker and that’s the way I wanted it. I preferred that she was here for the kids when they needed her…” Jack (84, traditional, widowed) says: Before I married the first time, I’d made up my mind that I wanted to marry a school teacher or nurse because they would help me raise my children. And [my spouse] was a school teacher, and [my LAT partner] is a nurse. Of course, now I have the advantage as an old man. I can travel with my own private nurse!

Thomas’s (65, traditional, divorced twice, five children) first wife initially stayed home with their young children while Thomas went to school and worked full-time, then she took on a part- time job to help offset the costs of Thomas’s graduate school education. Susan (68, traditional, divorced, two children) talks about how the desire to want something more in her life once her children were of school age helped to precipitate the end of her marriage. She says: I think afterwards and the kids were in school, I wanted to get out and do something…[e]ither go back to work, or do something, not just stay at home. He wanted a stay-at-home wife. And I wanted to do something, not just be a stay-at-home wife.

50 And, I think that started it, and [my first husband] was very, I wanna say, strict with me. I wasn’t really…I never could associate with any of my old friends or things like that. He kind of [makes gesture of being under his thumb] kept me under his thumb.

Marriage for both the earlier- and later-wave participants reflected qualities of interdependency and integration, namely, the implicit cultural expectation of having to marry and the limitation of men’s and women’s autonomy by prioritizing family over self. This compulsory nature of marriage in the earlier lives of the men and women came up during the interviews. For example, Kate (67, traditional/nontraditional, divorced, two children) reflected on her earlier life: …So I lived in a ‘Father Knows Best’ kind of household, growing up my mother didn’t work…so, at that point in the 60s [in college], the joke for women was that you wanted to go to college to get your ‘Mrs. degree’…it was never expected that you wouldn’t [get married]. If you didn’t, it was like, ‘What’s wrong?’ kind of thing.

Thomas (65, traditional, divorced twice, 5 children) describes how the pregnancy of his high school sweetheart motivated his first marriage, “[we] were married in the summer after our high school senior year. And, she was pregnant at the time, which motivated the marriage.” Although Jean (74, nontraditional, married late, no children) married “off-time” in her early 40s, she talks about how it became more uncomfortable for her to be unmarried as she aged. She says: When I married [first husband], I had gotten to the point [in my life] that I was embarrassed to not have a partner, an escort, a person in my life. There were so many [work] functions and community functions and couples doing things that I felt…I was beginning to feel uncomfortable about it.

Barbara (65, nontraditional, never married, no children) demonstrates an awareness as well as a resistance to the compulsory nature of marriage when she talks about being very young, yet aware how, “…just because of this culture, we’re supposed to want certain things, you’re supposed to get married, and you’re supposed to want to have kids, and I didn’t want either one of those, you know?”

51 These men and women both describe feeling “pressure” to achieve and perform in the roles demanded of them in this earlier life stage, and how the demands and pressure of fulfilling their gendered roles within a SNAF form limited their autonomy. The men and women in the study expressed feelings of having to sacrifice in earlier life stages for the good of the family; however, there were gendered differences in the way these individuals expressed this limitation of their autonomy. Some of the men in the study discussed having to sacrifice their own personal interests. Both Robert (65, traditional, divorced twice, four children) and Dennis (68, traditional, widowed, two children) discuss parents putting personal interests aside for the sake of the family, especially with young children, and then, in Robert’s words, “reverting back to their own individual preferences, as far as what interests them” once children are older. Dennis describes sacrifice as embedded in the financial responsibility of caring for a family when he says: So I’m trying to provide for the family, and I not only have a wife but I have children, and I’m committed to that, and I’m trying to give them the best and do the best I can for them. So, Saturday comes along and I want to go to the football game, well, maybe I need to work because we need the money, or whatever.

Dennis’ priority of family before self can be understood from his comment about spending money on hobbies. He says: I could not in good conscience…I could not take two or three hundred dollars out of the family budget and spend it on a singular activity just for myself, because we could use that (money) to go tent camping for two weeks or something like that.

Some men discussed how the pressure and stress of doing gender and doing family challenged or interfered with their spousal relationships. Stanley (89) says, “Making a living, and raising children and getting housing, and your personal relationships are under stress, and it makes it all the more difficult. I think…my first marriage was…ok, but it had its downside.” Dennis (69) echoes Stanley, “You’re struggling, you’re trying to make a living, you’re bringing up kids…there’s a lot of things that interfere. And here (now), I don’t have any of those distractions…”

52 While the concept of sacrificing in earlier life stages emerged from the interviews with the women in the study, their experience went beyond simply sacrificing what interests them personally, and spilled over into who they are, and the responsibility they feel to others which prevented them from making themselves a priority. Jean (74, nontraditional, married late, no children) talks about demands from multiple sources in her earlier life stage. “It’s just the pressures and things. Work and other things in your life that are, you know, permissions, regulations, everybody depending on you to do this and do that and the other thing.” Jean adds that, in her current life stage, an individual can “make time for yourself. Nancy (59, traditional/nontraditional, divorced, one child), expresses the connection between sacrifice and identity when she says, “But some people don’t know they’re sacrificing unless they get the chance to see who they were, or who they are without having to be the mother, the nurturer, the wife.” Nancy articulates a traditional gender role in her previous relationship when she says: …I think that’s the way women are. Let’s build this nest, and let’s keep it a happy nest, and that doesn’t always mean you live your life to the fullest,…it doesn’t even mean you have time to. You have a family, you’re not number one, you’re not number one anymore.

In short, for men, doing gender and doing SNAF family means prioritizing the breadwinner role at the expense of marital relationship quality and personal interests, while for women, the responsibility of putting others’ needs before their own dominated the early lives of the women in the sample. In summary, the men and women describe similar qualities in the pre-formation stage of LAT, including a focus on doing gender and doing family consistent with a SNAF family form. In addition, the men’s and women’s marriages were more interdependent and integrated than individualized, reflected by the compulsory nature of marriage during the time they married as well as prioritizing family and limiting their autonomy to pursue personal interests and identity. However, we can also see instances of women redoing gender and redoing family by marrying off-time or not at all, never having children, or being the major breadwinner in their families, reflecting a growing cultural acceptance and social conditions that allowed women to pursue non-normative family trajectories. These findings together form the backdrop from which the participants are forming LAT relationships. This early-life experience of gendered expectations

53 in relationships are still at work during later phases. I discuss in the next sections the enduring impact of these earlier gendered expectations on the current LAT relationship, which provides opportunities in later life to redo not only gender but family as well. CURRENT LIFE STAGE AND FORMATION OF LAT RELATIONSHIPS The formation of LAT relationships in the participants’ current life stage shows some different patterns than in earlier life (see Figure 3). Formation of LAT happens in a life stage no longer dominated by doing family, but instead

Figure 3 by redoing family, meaning the participants are Gender and Formation of LAT Relationships not focused on prioritizing family and marriages over self (or qualities of SNAF form) but REDOING GENDER instead are experiencing the freedom to - Maintaining separateness to pursue individual interests and prioritize themselves or to be more responsibilities Women individualistic in this life stage. In addition, a - Minimizing gendered expectations and roles inherent in doing family in gendered pattern is apparent, with the men a SNAF way REDOING FAMILY doing gender by relying on their LAT partner as Women - Less focus on SNAF lifestyle sole confidants and social connectors and and Men - Making self a priority: individualism and value of time alone and apart women redoing gender by forming a - LAT as an individualistic, non- relationship that facilitates their personal institutionalized and un-named intimate relationship in U.S. and source of care independence and avoidance of traditional and companionship gendered expectations inherent in doing family Men DOING GENDER - Expectations for women to be sole in a SNAF way. Finally, the men and women confidants and social connectors are forming LAT relationships by rejecting or avoiding the more institutionalized ways of partnering via marriage and/or cohabitation, and instead are forming an alternative relationship that they recognize has no identity or normative expectations in the U.S. Despite the challenges the couples face in being in such a relationship, it also provides them with the care and companionship they desire in later life, and at the same time, allows them to redo family by having an individualized relationship in later life. Redoing Family: Shifting Priorities From Family and Career to Self In direct contrast to the way in which participants describe the earlier life stage as being highly structured around the responsibilities and pressure of family and careers, they characterize

54 the current life stage as being relatively free from these demands, and from the gendered expectations of those demands. Participants characterize their current life stage as one in which they value their personal autonomy, including autonomy from gendered norms. With lessening family and career demands, the men and women in the study describe this phase as a life stage where they can devote time to self. Marion (74, traditional/nontraditional, divorced and widowed, three children) captures this sentiment and the gendered expectation for women to consider others before self when she says, “…you have children to consider when you’re younger, and so now, I have nothing to consider except myself.” The expression of making oneself a priority was varied for the men and women in the study. Some of the women talked about how this time of life allows them to focus on identity, including physical attractiveness. Sharon (64, traditional, widowed, three children), reflecting on how she had been with her late husband since the age of 16, remarks “…I’m beginning to get to the point where I…I need to know who I am on my own two feet.” Kate (67, traditional/nontraditional, divorced, two children) talked about how she is dealing with “…the ‘who am I?’ in terms of getting older and the sexuality, for example, am I still attractive?” In addition, Nancy (59, nontraditional, divorced one child) also echoes Kate’s question about still being attractive when she says, “…you still need to feel sexy. I don’t care if there’s follow through. I have to know that I’m still hitting (laughs)!” While the men did not mention concepts of identity or affirming their physical attractiveness to the opposite sex, some of the men did articulate how this time of life allows them and their partners to do what they want to do, and to enjoy life to the fullest. The men in the study expressed an appreciation for this freedom and choice they have in this life stage when compared to earlier life stages. Stanley (89, traditional, widowed and divorced, four children) says, “…we do whatever we want to do…kind of idyllic existence. We got the time, we got the money, and we got the people [a partner].” Furthermore, the LAT relationship allows participants to preserve their much-valued time alone or “me time.” This preference or desire for alone time is expressed by both male and female participants. Steve (62, nontraditional, divorced, three children) says, “I like having my own place. I like being able to retreat…I like being alone, you know, you don’t have to explain to someone what you are doing or not doing.” Dennis (69, traditional, widowed, two children) echoes the desire to do what he wants, when he wants:

55 It’s almost like, right now, ideal for me, the living apart thing. Because I can take a couple of days and go do what I want to do, whether it be chopping wood, sawing wood, or whatever I wanna do, so, and she can do the same thing.

Mary (85, traditional/nontraditional, widowed, two children) values the time together and apart: He leaves after breakfast and comes back in time for dinner. My mother had a wonderful phrase for that, she said to my father one time, ‘I married you for better or for worse, but not for lunch!’ I think that works very well.

Nancy (59, nontraditional, divorced, one child) simply says, “Alone time is delicious!” Men’s Need for Social Connectors and Women’s Need for Separateness Some of the men (as well as the partners of the women interviewed) either describe themselves (or are described by their partners) as “sort of a recluse,” loners, or introverts, and relate this trait to the importance of having a female partner as a confidant and social connector. This example of men doing gender is described by a number of participants. Robert (65, traditional/nontraditional, divorced twice, four children) says: Some people are extroverts. They walk into a crowd and next thing you know they’ve got 50 friends. I’m not like that. I’m a quiet person, reserved, and so that one person in my life is more important to me. I think I need that.

Robert also expressed how he prefers having his LAT partner with him when he visits with his children and grandchildren. Mike (83, traditional, divorced twice, three children) expresses how he spends less time with same-sex friends now that he has a partner: But I haven’t needed that [social outings with friends] now the I’ve met (LAT partner). And of course she has a lot of women friends both married and widowed or single that she has spent a lot of time with.

Mike also talked about valuing the companionship of his LAT partner so much, that the quality of his life would suffer if he didn’t have that relationship, “…she is special in that she’s somebody I can spend time with and enjoy, and if I didn’t have her and [previous LAT partner] before her, I just would not be as happy.”

56 While the man described their LAT partners as their confidants and social connectors, many of the women in the study, on the other hand, describe more fuller lives than their partners. This increased fullness is usually in the form of having more responsibilities in their life (e.g., hobbies, volunteering, working) as well as an ongoing commitment to a social network of friends and family. Sharon (64, traditional, widowed, three children) talks about the richness of her life when she discusses her reaction to potential marriage and moving to another state with her partner, “…I have a…a…a practice here that I like, I have clients, I have friends, I have church, I have everything. My life is really vibrant here…” Nancy (59, nontraditional, divorced, one child) compares her life to her LAT partner’s and says: …so we have pretty separate lives in a way and mine’s probably more full than his. So there’s a lot of my world that he’s not involved in and for awhile it felt schizophrenic but it doesn’t anymore. It’s merged enough.

Not only do the women discuss how the LAT relationship accommodates their social network and responsibilities separate from their partners, the women also report wanting to create and protect boundaries for themselves to avoid the traditional gendered expectations of housework and caregiving. In addition, the men also recognize this pattern of women redoing gender. Fran (65, nontraditional, widowed, two children), for example, talks about how the women in her life think her LAT arrangement is: …the perfect situation, that I can have a relationship, I can have that commitment, I can have that male presence in my life, without it being there all the time. And the demands often go, especially for a woman when they’re in a live-in situation. Who cooks? Who cleans? Who does the work? It more falls onto the woman.

This pattern of gendered expectations for women in co-residential or marital relationships emerged as a salient narrative. For example, women in the study discuss similar reactions from friends and acquaintances, with the added “warning” to not put themselves in a position to become caregivers to sick older men. Kate (67, traditional/nontraditional, divorced, two children) tells the story of her next door neighbor, an older widowed woman in her 80s, who commented that some of her friends got married in later life and their husbands subsequently fell ill, “…and then they end up having to take care of them.” The neighbor said, “I don’t wanna do

57 that.” Nancy (59, nontraditional, divorced, one child) speaks for a number of her female friends who express a desire to live alone without men when she says: I hear so many of my friends who are married who say, ‘If my husband died or if we got divorced I wouldn’t want to live with anyone else after this.’ But I think it’s not an uncommon thing; I don’t think it’s just me, I’m hearing it everywhere, from people who are my peers.”

Some men also mentioned a lack of interest and need among older women for a relationship in later life. Before Dennis (69, traditional, widowed, two children) settled into his LAT relationship, he dated different women, and discovered that “…these women are well- established, they have their friends, they have their finances…they just don’t wanna get involved with another man.” The Lack of Terminology for the LAT Relationship in U.S. The formation of LAT relationships begins when the men and women start “dating” their LAT partner, and over time, the couple decides to maintain a committed relationship, but remain living apart and unmarried. While useful for research purposes, the phrase “formation of LAT,” in actuality, does not exist in the U.S., because this country lacks a name for this type of a relationship, and the individuals in the sample are aware of the absence of such a term. Sharon (64, traditional, widowed, three children) says: There’s an interesting thing…this friend of mine says, she said, ‘In the English language we just don’t have enough words for relationship.’ There are not enough defined words for a relationship. That’s exactly right. We don’t. Who are we together if we don’t have a word for it? There’s no word for it. It’s an underground society.

Both of the men and women indicated in their interviews that not only does our culture lack a term for their relationship, but the terms that are available often do not feel context- or age- appropriate. Robert (65, traditional, divorced twice, four children) speaks to the context of the relationship when he says, “I guess if we were living together I would probably feel more comfortable with referring to her as my partner, but since we’re living apart I don’t feel comfortable with that.” Steven (62, nontraditional, divorced, three children) discusses the

58 context of his LAT relationship as well as the age appropriateness of available terms, but, unlike Robert, settles on the use of ‘partner.’ He says: …it’s a problem, because there isn’t a good or commonly accepted term…Cause I’m too old to have a , right? And…we’re not married and we don’t intend to get married so she’s not my fiancé. So, what is she? She’s my partner. We’ve finally decided that partner is…sufficient.

Fran (65, nontraditional, widowed, two children) captures the sentiments of age-appropriateness when she says: That [what they call the relationship] was probably one of the most difficult parts, is how do you define it? /girlfriend seems ridiculous…we’re so beyond boy and girl that it seems like such a ridiculous thing to call [each other].

Stanley (89, traditional, widowed/divorced, children) echoes Fran’s sentiments when he says: We usually say ‘my boyfriend’ or ‘my girlfriend’ with a smile because we really don’t know what to call the relationship…It’s a problem. I think we need a new name in the vocabulary because this kind of relationship is becoming more common.

Stanley also points to the lack legitimacy LAT partners may have in each other’s public lives, and how that becomes more of a problem when health begins to deteriorate. He says: If [LAT partner] gets worse, and has to have more attention…a lot more medical attention, it’s handy to have a spouse rather than the other, you know, which is – you have to explain yourself. We’ve gotten used to this, but it has no real standing…”

Despite a lack of terminology for the relationship, many of the participants have settled on a term to use to refer to their LAT relationship, and there does not appear to be a gendered pattern in the preference for terms. Both of the men and women in the study mention the terms “partner,” “,” “friend,” “close/special friend,” and “the man/woman I’m dating.” A similar pattern was found in Great Britain (which also lacks a term for this relationship type) where older LATs preferred “partner” over “boy/girlfriend” (Duncan, Phillips, Carter, Roseneil, & Stoilova, 2014) Although some of the men and women find it a challenge to navigate the

59 world as a couple that lacks a cultural identity and, at times, the legitimacy that comes with marriage, I argue that it is this lack of institutionalization that allows the men and women in later life to conduct themselves in a way that preserves their autonomy in an intimate relationship. Companionate Love: LAT as a Source for Care and Companionship in Later Life While the LAT relationship may lack an institutionalized identity and, at times, legitimacy, these relationships are undeniably a significant source of caring and companionship for the men and women interviewed. Similar to spouses who have been in long-term marriages, the men and women in the study tended to describe their current LAT relationship using qualities of companionate love as opposed to passionate love (Sheets, 2014; O’Brien, Pillemer, Hatfield, & Le, 2008). These themes included how the LAT relationship lacks an urgency or passion often present in earlier romantic relationships, the changing importance and quality of sex, as well as the importance of the relationship as a source of care and companionship. Robert (65, traditional, divorced twice, four children) describes the feelings he has for his partner: I don’t know if I’ll ever feel like I fell madly in love again like I did when I was younger, it’s a different feeling. But at the same time, we have a mutual respect and mutual caring about each other, and so on…

While Kate (68, traditional/nontraditional, divorced, two children) feels a deep commitment and love for her LAT partner, she also adds, “He’s not the big, big love of my life, or anything…” Steve (62, nontraditional, divorced, three children) explains how earlier in life he was very much in love and how the relationship with his LAT partner is: …emotional and practical and we love each other, but it doesn’t have that aspect…that romantic aspect, the idealization aspect or something where you feel partnered…like some kind of cosmic partnership. I suppose if I felt that with someone again I might think about getting married. But I don’t.

While some of the men and women in the study describe a lack of passion or urgency in their LAT relationships, this does not mean they lack a satisfying physical relationship. Many of the men and women talked about the sexual aspects of their relationships, and common themes that emerged included sex taking different forms (from hugging and cuddling to sexual

60 intercourse) and the changing importance of sex with age. Thomas (65, traditional, divorced twice, 5 children) says: we have…a very satisfying physical relationship, but it is not in any way near the physical relationship that I had in my younger years…in part, it’s simply a function of aging. It’s…a very satisfying physical relationship, but it almost takes second seat to that kind of emotional connection.

Nancy (59, nontraditional, divorced, one child) said she did not think she would ever admit it when she was younger, but she’s learned that, “Sex is not the driving force, I always thought I’d hate to say that…but you know, when you are there, it’s true: sex is not the driving force. It’s the dessert.” On the other hand, some men and women placed high importance on the sexual aspect of their relationship, and some were experiencing the best sex of their lives. Sharon (64, traditional, widowed, three children) says, “…he and I are great sexually. We really have fun. He’s the best lover I’ve ever…he’s way more of a companion in that way than [late husband] was, and we just really enjoy each other sexually.” Robert (65, traditional, divorced twice, four children) says, “…I would have to say that this relationship is probably sexually been more satisfying than other relationships. I just wanted to mention it. I think it is important. We tend to…It tends to be a catalyst in our relationship.” While the importance of sex varied in the lives of the men and women interviewed, there was more of a consensus that the most important factors in their relationship during later life are caring and companionship. Men and women agree on the importance of having a special person in their lives who care for them. For Jean (74, nontraditional, married late, no children), whose partner lives close by, mutual caring is a key quality in her LAT relationship. This mutual caring goes beyond simply knowing someone cares, but watching out for one another. She says: He can sit in his chair and see my car arriving in my garage. That doesn’t bother me and we use that as a signal sometimes. I put my shade up in the morning and turn the light on and he’ll turn his outside light on when he’s up. I know he’s up, and he’s okay and I’m up and I’m okay…without trying to remember to make a phone call.

Some of the women also talked about the importance of being able to do little things for each other. One female participant likes to write little poems and limericks for her partner. Mary (84,

61 traditional/nontraditional, widowed, two children) speaks to the importance of the physical aspect of her LAT relationship as well as shares Jean’s sentiments about watching out for one another when she says, “Yeah, I just love to wake up next to somebody who’ll touch me, or know if I get up, or know if I get sick, or kiss me good night, and so on.” The companionship qualities mentioned by both the men and women in the study included having daily contact and conversations with one another, sharing the details of their days and any family news. Traveling together, sharing daily meals and entertainment, such as watching television or going to the movies, were often frequently discussed by the men and women in the study. In summary, men and women share similarities surrounding the formation of their LAT relationships, including redoing family by no longer engaging in the work that is required to maintain a family characterized by SNAF. Instead, they are focused on prioritizing themselves or being more individualistic, valuing their time alone and apart from their LAT partner. At the same time, men are doing gender by placing a high importance on having a female partner as their sole confidant and social connector, and women are redoing gender by forming a relationship that supports existing responsibilities and social networks apart from their LAT partners and minimizes the gendered expectations and roles inherent in doing family in a SNAF manner. Both men and women acknowledge that our culture lacks a a name for LAT, and this creates a lack of legitimacy which presents a challenge to couples, but at the same time facilitates redoing family by men and women maintaining an individualized relationship in later life. Finally, although the relationship lacks qualities of being institutionalized, the LAT relationships are valuable to the men and women in the study as important sources of care and companionship in later life.

CURRENT LIFE STAGE AND MAINTENANCE OF LAT RELATIONSHIPS The LAT relationship essentially allows men and women to redo family by maintaining an individualistic relationship that combines autonomy and companionship. In addition to the importance of time alone and apart from one another (discussed in the previous section), the men and women also describe other individualistic qualities of their relationships. These qualities include desiring to preserve the ability to easily end the relationship, to avoid combining households and financial resources, and the non-necessity of marriage in a life stage no longer dominated child-bearing and rearing. Although men express both doing and redoing gender when it comes to who pays for travel and everyday expenses associated with spending time

62 together, women in LAT relationships expressed actively redoing gender on an ongoing basis. The women discuss resisting traditional gendered expectations of wives, including being submissive to male dominance. The women articulate maximizing the satisfaction they have with their LAT partner by minimizing having to do gender, including tolerating their partner’s controlling personality, catering to their partner’s wants and needs, and becoming a caregiver to their LAT partner in the future. See Figure 4 for an overview of how gender is manifested in the maintenance phase of the LAT relationship. Individualized Relationship Qualities of LAT In addition to the value men and women place on time alone and apart from their partner, they discuss other ways in which their LAT relationship is an individualized relationship. Some of the women (and one of the men) expressed an aversion to marriage because they want to preserve the ability to end the relationship. Gloria (68, nontraditional, divorced twice, one child) says: …we’re committed to each other, but we aren’t engaged and we’re not married, and I feel like I need an out. Like, what if I’m misjudging again…or what if this really isn’t workable, or what if, what if, what if?!

Robert also likes the idea of having an out by not marrying: …if you’re not married you kind of feel like you’re not locked in. Like you always have that sort of little extra ability to find an escape route or, not that I would want to get out of our relationship, but…I mean, it just gives you a little added edge of independence.

When it came to the idea of marriage, some of the men and women expressed how LAT allows them to avoid the interdependent and integrated qualities of marriage, by avoiding combining finances and households. In addition, they expressed the belief that marriage was for the benefit of building a SNAF life and having a family together, a stage the men and women admitted they were beyond. Stanley (89, traditional, widowed/divorced, four children) talks about how the LAT relationship allows for them to avoid combining finances, “We’re both comfortable with keeping our money separate. We both have children whom we want to leave estates to, and if you have a spouse, that’s who gets the estate!” Nancy (59, nontraditional,

63 divorced, one child) not only talks about losing alone time, but also control over how she spends money. She says: I would have so much less alone time…and money would be a difference. I would spend my money totally differently, and I don’t think I would like that…And I think there would be problems between us over how he spends money, too, so not just one-sided.”

In addition to the challenge of mingling finances, the logistics of combining two physical households was also an issue participants discussed. In reaction to the idea of combining households, Jack (84, traditional, widowed, three children) says: …it would be difficult. Very difficult. We’re both pretty set that way. She’s been there about 20 years, and I’m here 35 years. Everything we have there is some attachment to. All around the house are memories, and she has the same thing…what do we get rid of? I’m not ready for that.

Susan (68, traditional, divorced, two children) says she and her LAT partner have discussed living together, but they cannot seem to make it work. Her LAT partner has a business territory where he might be called to locations that would be too far to travel to if he moved in with her, and he likes where he lives because it is close to his parents and , and, she adds: …he’s real close to his family…It’s hard to make it work with his responsibilities there, and I have responsibilities here, how can we make it work? We’ve talked about that for years, well, it’s proven that it has worked the way it’s working [by living apart].

Some of the men and women question the relevance of marriage in later life, emphasizing the need for marriage earlier in life when having children and building a life together, and in the case of the majority of the participants, doing family in a SNAF way. Fran (65, untraditional, widowed, two children) comments: …I don’t see much reason for marriage. It is…I think that if you are raising children…it makes good sense to have a committed relationship that works together to raise these kids. But outside of that, I don’t really see where marriage has a reason.

64 Robert (65, traditional, divorced twice, four children) points to not only age but the times we live in as factors that make marriage irrelevant, “I mean, you know…in this day and age, what is the real need to get married? Especially at our age. I don’t know what the advantage is.” Dennis (69, traditional, widowed, two children) also thinks marriage is more important in earlier life stages. He says: I don’t think marriage is as strong of a component as it would be to me in my 20s or 30s…or 40s. And I definitely would have wanted to be married then. And I have those commitments in place. But now, it’s just not the same, it’s just not that important. I don’t think.

In addition to the aversion to combining finances and households, the men and women also expressed that, if they were married, the roles and responsibilities would be more defined. In the same way women mentioned the decision to form a LAT relationship as a way to avoid the expectation of caregiving, even after forming the relationship it remains a very salient reason for staying in the LAT arrangement. Nancy (59, nontraditional, divorced, one child) commented what would be different if she was married to her LAT partner: “The level of commitment is pretty much there…I think the only thing I can think of that would be…more clear would be who takes care of whom under dire circumstances if you’re married. I’m not sure about that.” Men and Finances: Doing Gender in Public and Redoing Gender in Private The overall desire to keep finances separate in later life is not the only financial issue the participants discussed Highly gendered themes about money emerged from interviews with both men and women; who pays for the expenses of the couple when they spend time together? For the majority of the couples who vacation together, they tend to share in the costs equally, often times having one partner pay for the airline tickets, and the other pay for the hotel. As for the everyday expenses such as dining out and entertainment, the patterns ranged from men and women both redoing gender as was the case for the more egalitarian couples who split these costs, to both men and women doing gender in which the man consistently pays for the couple’s expenses. For those couples who share the costs of everyday expenses, two themes emerged: those who trade off paying, and those in which the male preserves the appearance of doing gender by paying in public and settling the expenses in private with their LAT partners. Mike (84, traditional, divorced twice, three children) is an example of the former when he says:

65 …pretty much everything we do is Dutch as best we can do and then…we don’t nickel and dime or five dollar and ten dollar here…I try to keep up with what she would pick up the bill for. [If she] pay[s] the check…then I’ll settle up with her or I’ll do something the next night.

Sharon (traditional, 64, widowed, three children), on the other hand, despite having more money than her LAT partner, explains how they share the couple’s travel and everyday expenses because her partner is uncomfortable not paying. When asked about how they coordinate paying for things, she says: Yeah, actually, we started…it was difficult. I was like, ‘Let me pay for this, you don’t have to pay.’ [and he says] ‘I feel like I should take you out to dinner.’ We started a checking account, this is something we did that was really fun…we both put $500 a month in the account and it basically covers traveling….or if we eat out or do what we need to do…And we both have charge cards [debit cards]…I said, ‘Hey, this is silly. Let’s just [have a joint account]…And you can…if you feel like it’s the manly thing to do, you whip out the card and pay for it…it’ll feel good, and I’ll feel good because I know that I’m participating.’

While many of the couples share expenses, some of the men in the LAT arrangements are doing gender by paying for the couple’s expenses the majority of the time due to believing, as one male participant says, “it’s the man’s job.” However, these men exhibit a similar pattern of being aware of the appearance of the man paying, but without settling the bill in private with their LAT partner. Betty (84, traditional/nontraditional, divorced and widowed, four children) explains how her LAT partner insists on paying for everyday expenses when they are out in public. She says: When we’re together he always says ‘Don’t embarrass me.’ I’ll say ‘let me pick up the tab today.’ And he’ll say ‘Don’t embarrass me.’ I suppose I could take my credit card [out] and sign my name. No. No, he’s very generous.

Marion (73, traditional/nontraditional, divorced and widowed, three children) expresses the same experience with her LAT partner, and says “He always pays…[h]e gets insulted if I try to pay.”

66 Women Maximizing Relationship Satisfaction by Minimizing Doing Gender In addition to the aversion to and perceived irrelevance of late-life marriage for most of the women, overwhelmingly, the women characterized marriage as an arrangement that revolves around doing gender, or traditional gendered behavior. The older and younger women in the study discussed both the expectation and pressure on wives to be submissive to husbands’ more dominant behavior, and the cultural norms that help to create these divisions. In addition, for some of the women in the study, their LAT partners exhibit some of these more dominant masculine traits, and the LAT arrangement allows them to minimize doing gender and maximize their relationship satisfaction. When discussing this traditional division of gendered roles, some of the women point to how culture both helps to create these expectations and pressure, and how men and women are socialized earlier in life to do gender in relationships. When discussing the pressure to do gender, Fran (65, nontraditional, widowed, two children), says: I think it would be my expectations, what I would bring to the picture, and what the male brings to the picture, too. It’s a … cultural tradition that has certain expectations with it and once you step into that, it’s pretty hard to shove them away.

Jean (74, nontraditional, divorced, no children) recognizes not only how men are socialized to expect a certain gendered behavior from their partners, but also how women work harder than men in marriage. Jean says: It’s not just a fifty-fifty thing in marriage. Women, I feel, give more. But that’s old- fashioned, maybe that’s not the case anymore. [Women] give more of their time and their energy, whereas men from our generation…like to be waited on, no matter what job the wife has, that’s still a need. That’s why school, teaching and nursing [and secretarial work]…those kinds of careers were so acceptable to our culture because we’re doing the same thing [taking care of men and/or children]. It’s interesting.

A number of the women discussed how their previous marriages revolved around being submissive to dominant husbands. Susan (68, nontraditional/traditional, divorced, two children), when characterizing her experience in marriage, says, “Well, marriage to me was a dominating

67 person that I’d wait on all the time.” Kate (66, nontraditional/traditional, divorced, two children), talks about how she felt she needed to be the person her husband wanted her to be: I tried to do things that I thought he wanted, be the way I thought he wanted me to be, and that didn’t seem to please him, and make him happy. And, then I tried to be myself, and that didn’t seems to make him happy because…I guess what I’m implying is…now that I’m saying that…it is your role [as a wife]. One of the things is you have to meet the other person’s needs for happiness. But that was the understanding in our Western culture, in that time period.

The women participants also expressed how the LAT arrangement allows them to maximize the satisfaction they have with their LAT partner. The women acknowledge that the LAT relationship allows them to “carve out” or minimize the qualities of their partner or the relationship that would matter more if they lived under the same roof. Interestingly, this “carving out” takes the form of minimizing doing gender by managing the impact of gendered behavior and expectations, such as catering to their partner’s wants and needs, tolerating their partner’s controlling personality, and caregiving. A common theme that emerged from the interviews with the female participants (especially the earlier-wave women) was the implicit practice of doing gender by putting their partner’s needs first when they were together, and how the LAT relationships allowed them to avoid having to continually cater to their partner’s needs. When Mary (85, traditional/nontraditional, widowed, two children) is with her partner, she is compelled to cooperate all the time. When asked what it would be like to live together or be married, she says, “Everyday cooperation, every hour cooperation. And I don’t always want to cooperate.” When asked what cooperation meant to her, the example she gave was needing to accommodate her partner’s food preferences. However, Mary also references the possible consequences of not doing gender when she adds, “I don’t have to accommodate him. But I would anyway, you know…I wouldn’t want to lose him (laughs).” Marion (73, traditional/nontraditional, divorced and widowed, three children) feels compelled to please her LAT partner when they spend time together, and when she talks about their time apart, she can put herself first. She says, “I like having time, like today, a whole day that I don’t have to please him at all, that I can do whatever I want to do.” Jean (74, nontraditional, married late, divorced and widowed, no children) reflects

68 on what it would be like if she and her partner lived together, and recognizes her urge to cater to his needs and expresses some ambivalence about doing it on a full-time basis. She says: And, you see in courting, or dating, whatever…I go overboard when he’s in the house. I’ll wait on him, I’ll get his shoes, I’ll bring him water or…I’ll fix his drink, or I’ll do all these things. He’s my guest, and my love, so I’m going to do for him. Now, am I ready to do that on a full-time basis? That’s a good question. And that’s what it would be.

Some of the women mentioned how gender roles were modeled in their households growing up with some moms being homemakers and others being “super moms” who had successful professional careers and, at the same time, maintained the duties of domestic life with family. Ellen (67, nontraditional, divorced early in life, no children) had such a role model, and despite living a relatively nontraditional life (e.g., being a breadwinner in a marriage to a man 10 years her junior), finds herself fighting the urge to do gender by catering to her LAT partner. She says: I think still at this moment what I’m trying to do is not to wait on him hand and foot, which I think is what I would do. Which is the old model, again, and I really would not be happy with it…and I think he would accept it, or want it, expect it as well…and I do know that if we were living together, he’d have to to get his own drink and make his own breakfast more than now.

Although the theme of catering to their LAT partner was discussed more by the older cohort of women (most likely reflecting a practice they are carrying over from earlier life stage relationships), the younger women interviewed were not immune to this practice. In addition to feeling the pressure to cater to their LAT partners, and wanting to minimize that aspect of doing gender, this relationship form also allows women to challenge traditional power structures often inherent in marital relationships: men’s tendency to have greater power in marriages. Women discussed how LAT allowed them to limit having to tolerate their LAT partner’s propensity to be controlling. Betty (84, traditional/nontraditional, divorced and widowed, four children) talks about how in her marriage, she had the autonomy to purchase things for the house, such as appliances, but recognizes it would be different with her LAT

69 partner if they were married because of his need to be in control of household decisions. She says: My husband NEVER went shopping with me. He’d say, ‘You want it, you get it. You know more about than I do.’…So, that’s been my way of doing things. Well, when I needed a new refrigerator, I just went out and bought it. He [LAT partner] said, ‘You didn’t consult me.’ And I said, ‘Why would I?’…Well, he has to research EVERYTHING. And I think that’s part of why I couldn’t be totally committed to him and live with him, because he would, in the long run, make the final decision, I think. I think that’s it in a nutshell, and I couldn’t accept that.

Susan (68, traditional/nontraditional, divorced, two children) highlights a similar pattern in her LAT relationship. She says, “He’s a very intense person, and I’m a little more laidback…Well, you know, I think…more control, he likes to be in control of things. It’s probably what’s kept us apart, because he likes to be in control.” In addition to catering to their LAT partner’s wants and needs and tolerating their propensity to be controlling, women are also faced with another possibility of doing gender: becoming caregivers to their LAT partners when declining health occurs. Many of the women participants express an awareness of how they are (or have the potential to be) healthier, have better fitness, or will likely outlive their partners. Some of the women are concerned that the loss of independence on the part of their partners threatens their own autonomy, potentially catapulting them into a caregiver role that they are either ambivalent about or have no interest in doing. Kate (68, traditional/nontraditional, divorced, two children), says: So the caregiving, no, I don’t want to do that. I’m too independent…I would consider it almost a burden. And, I wouldn’t wanna be a burden on him. Because he…his wife [was sick] for many years, and [he] took care of her and I thought, I wouldn’t want that to happen to him because of me.

Ellen (67, nontraditional, divorced, no children) expresses the idea of how since she hasn’t been in her LAT partner’s life very long and because they are not married, she should not be responsible for caregiving. She says:

70 I’m not going to slow down, and he already is, from when we first met…But that’s one thing I’ve really gotta make sure, I’m not taking care of an invalid…I’ve know him for three years! I’m not married to him. I don’t have any of his kids. I do not have that responsibility to take care of somebody for another 20 years. It’s THEIR [his children] responsibility.

When it comes to the potential to care for her partner who is ten years older, Jean (74, nontraditional, divorced and widowed, no children) expresses another pattern – ambivalence. She says: If I had to say there’s one thing in this age difference…it causes some discomfort in our relationship is that I am so physical…I’m blessed with good health. So, I’m overactive for my age, probably. And he admires that…yet at the same time he feels sadly that he might be holding me back…If he needed me, Denise, if he were disabled to the point where he couldn’t live alone, then, yes, I would want us to live together so it would be easier for me to care for him. But as long as he is as independent as he is, and I am, too, I think living separately is a good thing for us.

Furthermore, in response to their own potential loss of independence due to declining health, many of the women indicated they would prefer to rely on family members (and most often named a daughter) for care rather than their LAT partner. It was common for the women to say they want to avoid being a burden on their partners, and in some cases, on their children as well. Some of the men, on the other hand, expressed either confidence or certainty that their partners would care for them and they would care for their partners, or they spoke in very general terms about what they could do for their partner if faced with their need for care. For example, when asked if they would be their LAT partner’s caregiver, some responses included, “I would want to be as helpful as I can,” “I would want to play a role,” and “I would do the best I could.” Although this pattern may appear as if men may be redoing gender when it comes to caregiving, given that men and women in marital relationships are most often the primary caregivers to their spouses, this may be normative behavior for an intimate partner. In summary, in the maintenance stage of LAT the participants are redoing family by maintaining an individualistic intimate relationship that accommodates men and women’s need

71 for autonomy in later life, including the ability to easily end the relationship as well as preserve separate finances and households. In addition, the women are also redoing gender by actively resisting cultural expectations surrounding women’s submissiveness to men, and maintaining a LAT relationship as a way to maximize relationship satisfaction by minimizing having to do gender by catering to, caregiving for, and accommodating male dominance by their partner. For some of the men in the study, preserving the appearance of doing gender by paying for everyday expenses of the couple, while at the same time settling the bill in private with their LAT partners, represents a more complex expression of doing and redoing gender.

72 CHAPTER FOUR: DISCUSSION The primary aim of this study is to understand how gender is manifested in the formation and maintenance of LAT relationships in later life. Using a social constructivist lens, I approach the treatment of gender as not only a social construction, but as a social structure as well. The significance of treating gender as social structure is that it allows for the recognition that gender is indeed embedded at multiple levels of society: the individual, interactional, and institutional dimensions (Risman, 1997, 2004). Conceptualizing gender in this way reveals power imbalances between men and women as well as the ways in which traditional gendered expectations are performed and resisted. A life course perspective provides the framework with which to analyze gender as a dynamic social structure explored across the time period of the participants’ lives, illuminating the changing landscape of gender roles, especially for women, and how these changes have created opportunities to partner in non-marital and non-residential ways. LAT appears to be a preferred way to partner in later life, especially for women, as an alternative to marriage or cohabitation, not a stepping stone to co-residential partnership arrangements. LAT relationships allow women to circumvent or minimize traditional gendered expectations that accompany marital or cohabiting relationships. At the same time, LAT relationships provide men and women the ability to meet their needs for companionship or intimacy with their need for autonomy. Although these finding are not unique to my study (e.g., see Karlsson & Borell, 2002), I argue that not only is LAT an alternative way of partnering, it is also a new family form. Instead of forming families in a SNAF way (based on childrearing and adherence to traditional gender norms), men and women in later-life LAT relationships appear to be redoing family by forming an intimate relationship characterized by individualistic traits. The findings from this study add to existing research on later life relationships that shows the ways in which women are redoing gender. In addition, this study begins to identify the ways in which gender matters for men, and how LAT relationships are a way for both men and women to redo family in later life. In this final chapter, I situate my findings within the existing literature on gender, aging, and LAT, explain how the findings add to a new understanding of gender, family, and intimate relationships, and highlight the important life course factors (which I argue are also characteristics of the second demographic transition) that have been influential in understanding the dynamics of gender, aging, and intimate relationships. I also explain limitations of this research and make recommendations for future research.

73 Gender and Relationships Earlier in Life: Doing Gender The findings from this study add to the existing literature showing that conformance to traditional gender roles in family life is greater when performing the roles of spouse and parent earlier in life (Roberts, Helson, & Klohnen, 2002), particularly for white men and women (Vespa, 2009). For the most part, the men and most of the women in my study described earlier marriages in which husbands were the major breadwinners, and wives, although they may have worked, were primarily responsible for the domestic and child care work in their families. This Standard North American Family form (Smith, 1993) dominated participants’ early-life experiences, and embedded within this family form are men and women doing gender. In addition, the marriages (and subsequent children) formed during the earlier lives of the participants were described as happening at a time when marriage was culturally compulsory and had the effect of limiting men and women’s autonomy to pursue individual interests and identities. The interdependent and integrated identity qualities of the marriages were clearly evident in most of the participants’ lives, and reflect a time in history when marriage was the primary and dominant way in which men and women partnered. However, my findings also suggest that not only did the men and women in the study conform to traditional gender roles earlier in life, they also found traditional feminine and masculine characteristics attractive in their earlier mates (e.g., men desiring women who would be good mothers, and women desiring men who would be good financial providers). In essence, earlier in their lives, the men and women placed high importance on traditional feminine and masculine characteristics that would allow them to do family in a SNAF way with their partners. Therefore, not only were the men and women conforming to traditional gender roles earlier in life, they also articulate seeking out partners that would allow them to do gender in a complementary way with their spouse. Not all participants in the study performed traditional gender roles in a SNAF way during the earlier life course, though, and this is particularly the case for women. Some of the women I interviewed deviated from the prescriptive social and cultural norms of marriage and childbearing by never marrying, marrying for the first time “off-time,” never having children, and/or taking on the main breadwinning role in their marriages. These examples of women redoing gender earlier in life speak to the dynamic historical landscape that is changing gender norms, especially for women. Increasing education and labor force participation for women not

74 only helps women to be financially independent and less reliant on a husband for support, it also creates opportunities for women to do gender differently in their own families. Gender and Relationships in Later Life: Redoing Gender Although the earlier life course of older adults was heavily gendered in traditional ways for most men and women, later-life relationship patterns are different. Research finds that older couples in long-term marriages who no longer have children at home show a pattern of reclaiming opposite gender-linked traits (Gutmann, 1987). Older men in several studies reported being more communal and cooperative, whereas women reported being more assertive and agentic than when their children were younger and resided with them (Huyck, 1996; Huyck & Gutmann, 1992). I examined gender in a different relationship context than these existing studies (i.e., LAT instead of long-term marriages), and found a similar pattern among the female participants. Findings from this study clearly show how the women in LAT relationships are actively redoing gender by avoiding or minimizing the ways in which men exert power in intimate relationships. In other words, whether in long-term marriages or in a LAT relationship, women appear to conform less to traditional gender norms and expectations in later life. This possible age effect has been suggested in other research showing older women of the Baby Boom and Great Depression generations demonstrating less traditional attitudes toward gender with age (Lynott & McCandless, 2000), and a decrease with age in femininity scores for women born in the 1920s irrespective of marital or parental status (Jones, Peskin, & Livson, 2011). However, the importance of the historical time period encompassing the women’s movement cannot be discounted, as this movement occurred at a time when women’s identity development in adolescence and early adulthood was taking place, suggesting a possible cohort effect. Boomer women whose identity development coincided with the women’s movement are more likely to endorse masculine personality traits and have higher androgyny scores than older cohorts (Strough, Leszczynski, Neely, Flinn, & Margrett, 2007). My findings, coupled with existing research (e.g., Karlsson and Borell, 2002; Upton- Davis, 2013) suggest that women’s formation and maintenance of LAT relationships in later life is partially in reaction to and rejection of gendered expectations from earlier relationships and earlier time periods. LAT allows women to limit or minimize some of the ways in which men exert power in intimate relationships and to avoid having to take on the domestic work of a

75 combined household. Therefore, it appears that women choose to partner in a LAT way because it allows them to circumvent traditional gendered roles which would likely be “triggered” within the context of marriage. I argue that this may speak to the ways in which marriage remains a social institution that places an uneven burden on wives, a sentiment which one female participant, Jean, (74, nontraditional, married late, no children) spoke to directly when she said marriage “…is not just a fifty-fifty thing... [w]omen, I feel, give more.” Research shows that when compared to husbands, wives perform a disproportionate share of not only household work and child care (Treas & Drobnic, 2010), but also the ‘ work’ involved in family life and intimate relationships (Duncombe & Marsden, 1993; Strazdins & Broom, 2004). Furthermore, despite being from different countries, globally within Western nations, women do appear to be playing “…a vital role in establishing and upholding LAT relationships” (Karlsson & Borell, 2002, p. 11). For example, women in Canada, Sweden, and Australia express how maintaining a LAT relationship allows them to circumvent a gendered division of labor (e.g., household domestic duties and becoming a caregiver of a male partner) required of them in earlier life marriages (Funk & Kobayashi, 2014; Karlsson & Borell, 2002; Malta & Farquharson, 2014; Upton-Davis, 2013). Ways in which women are redoing gender in LAT relationship go beyond wanting to avoid taking on the caregiver and domestic roles: LAT also allows women to equalize power in intimate relationships. Minimizing catering to their male partners’ needs, limiting controlling behavior, and avoiding being submissive are other ways in which women are redoing gender in LAT relationships. In Canadian samples, LAT has been found to reduce relationship conflict (Funk & Kobayashi, 2014), and Australian research suggests LAT optimizes women’s relationship satisfaction by allowing them to avoid the aspects of their LAT partners that would have been harder to endure if they lived together (Upton-Davis, 2013). Although these studies, as well as my own, suggest that LAT is a site for women to redo gender, one study finds the opposite. Duncan (2014) found that the British women in his study seldom “…use LAT to purposefully or reflexively undo gender” (p. 1). This finding may be due in part to his younger sample; a number of the women in the study were under the age of 45, and desired to live with their partners and have children. This lack of resistance to gendered norms is not surprising, given that conformance to traditional gender norms and expectations is highest at younger ages, and especially within familial roles. These findings suggest that LAT may

76 function differently in earlier life than in later life, and my research contributes to the existing literature by showing that older women are redoing gender within LAT relationships. Although my results suggest that for the women in the study, redoing gender was particularly central to their experience of LAT, the men, on the other hand, demonstrated a different pattern. The men appeared to create the same gendered pattern performed in earlier intimate relationships: relying on a female partner to be their primary confidant and social connector. Similar to husbands relying on wives to be kin keepers (Di Leonardo, 1987) and their sole confidants (Powers & Bultena, 1976; Depner & Ingersoll-Dayton, 1985), my findings suggest that men in LAT relationships may seek to recreate this gendered pattern with their LAT partners. However, not only are men seeking to recreate familiar gendered arrangements with their LAT partners, but some of the men in the study (and the male partners described by some of the women) demonstrate a more intricate expression of doing and redoing gender. Although other research shows men in LAT relationships enacting the breadwinner role (Lyssens- Danneboom & Mortelmans, 2014), the way the men in my study did this was not always that straightforward. While some men in my study did enact the breadwinner role by insisting on paying for everyday expenses of the couple, other men wanted to preserve the public appearance of being the breadwinner by paying in public and settling the bill in private with their LAT partners. The contrast between gender structure earlier in life and later life hints at the way in which gender structure may change with age. Work, spousal, and parental roles significantly shape gender experience earlier in life, with men and women conforming to traditional gender norms and expectations. However, when lives no longer revolve around earlier-life roles, gender structure appears to shift, opening up more opportunities to resist “…habitualized gender routines” (Risman, 1998, p. 434). This finding answers Risman’s (1998) call to identify sites where men and women can exercise agency to act outside of gender norms and expectations, and begins to fill the gap in research to understand how gender structure can change as we age. LAT: Redoing Family as an Individualized Intimate Relationship Despite the tendencies of women to redo gender and men to do gender in LAT relationships, both share the desire to maintain a relationship with individualized qualities. Qualities of individualization were prevalent in interviews with both men and women and included the importance of maintaining personal autonomy and separate finances, as well as

77 preserving an “out” in the relationship. At the root of understanding individualized intimate relationships is the theory of individualization. This theory posits how intimate relationships in modern societies become less determined by social structures and normative expectations, and instead are formed and maintained as long as the individuals remain satisfied with the relationship, or what Giddens (1992) refers to as a “pure relationship.” The concept of “pure relationship” assumes a high degree of individual agency and suggests the continuation of intimate relationships is contingent on the mutual physical and emotional satisfaction of both partners (Giddens, 1991, 1992). Pure relationships depend on what individuals articulate as desirable in a relationship coupled with what they bring to a relationship (Giddens, 1992). These qualities of a “pure relationship” can be found in LAT relationships, evidenced, for example, by men and women carving out aspects of the relationship that suit them best in their current life stage, with boundaries often drawn to preserve individualism. While some may argue that marriage itself is becoming more individualized, the occurrence of LAT may be in reaction to marriage’s enduring interdependent qualities. Cherlin (2004) asserts that marriage has undergone a deinstitutionalization in the U.S., resulting in “a weakening of the social norms that define partner’s behavior” (Cherlin, 2004, p. 848). Cherlin asserts that one sign of this deinstitutionalization of marriage is the transition of marriage from companionate to individualized. Instead of deriving identity and satisfaction from performing marital and family roles (or what is referred to as companionate marriage), individuals derive identity and satisfaction from personal choice and self-development (or an individualized marriage). However, other scholars suggest these shifts in marriage have been more minimal. Although there is some evidence of deinstitutionalization of marriage (e.g., a more equitable division of household and child labor among husbands and wives; increasing rates of divorce, cohabitation, and childbearing outside of marriage), these changes may speak to the increasing individualization of society in general and not necessarily “…what is happening in the institution of marriage” (Yodanis & Lauer, 2014, p. 187). Yodanis and Lauer, instead, argue that scholars need to explore the actual behaviors of married men and women in U.S. in order to assess whether marriage has become more individualized. By examining interdependency and couple identity traits of men and women in marriages (e.g., separate family names, living apart, separate financial resources and social networks, relationship impermanence), Yodanis and Lauer (2014)

78 conclude that American marriages are more interdependent than individualized. In addition, there is not a clear pattern suggesting marriages are becoming more individualized over time. Therefore, it is possible that marriage remains an interdependent intimate relationship with traditional gendered expectations. Loscocco and Walzer (2013) state, “…the differentiated roles of wife and husband are central to the perpetuation of dominant constructions of both marriage and gender” (p. 3). I argue that since marriage remains a highly gendered social institution at a time when women have increasing education and labor force participation and less traditional attitudes toward gender, it follows that marriage in its current traditional form may be unattractive to some women in later life. In addition, the interdependent qualities of marriage may not suit men’s and women’s needs for more autonomy in later life. Furthermore, I assert that traditional norms of marriage have such a strong foothold in American culture that the women in my study have a perception of marriage fixed within the historical time in which they were first married. And, even though their current life stage is no longer dominated by the traditional gendered norms present in earlier relationships, the women in the study never discussed the possibility “doing” marriage any differently than they did when they were younger (i.e., being submissive and having to cater to a husband). Instead of “redoing” marriage in a way that is more egalitarian, their solution is to redo family by creating and maintaining an individualized intimate relationship that frees them from some of the gendered norms within marriage. This is consistent with existing research in Canada; Funk and Kobayashi (2014), for example, go as far as to theorize that the systemic inequalities that persist in co-residential relationships “…produce LAT arrangements as an individualized response for older women” (p. 19). LAT relationships, in short, allow women to avoid marital and/or co- residential relationship arrangements that appear to trigger traditional gendered behavior and expectations. The Life Course and LAT Relationships In addition to utilizing a constructivist perspective on gender, this study benefits from the life course perspective in understanding the role gender plays in LAT relationships. The life course perspective provides a lens with which to view the actual lived experiences of men and women in LAT relationships. This framework examines how, given opportunities and constraints of historical contexts and social structure, individuals continually construct their own life paths (Settersten, 2003). The factors that appear to be most influential in understanding

79 older adults’ paths to LAT are also the same factors that have brought about changes in family forms and intimate relationships: namely, historical context and changing social norms and expectations surrounding gender and intimate relationship. The earlier lives of my participants were dominated by traditional marital and family roles, and, at the same time, increasing opportunities for marital dissolution and repartnering, reflecting the growing acceptability of ways to partner outside of marriage. However, we can also see evidence of changing social norms and expectations surrounding gender and relationships as demonstrated by the women in the study who never married, never had children, married off-time, or were breadwinners in their families. The historical context that emerged in the mid-20th century, which included increasing education and career opportunities for women, the women’s movement, no-fault divorce laws, and anti-discrimination workplace laws helped to create the conditions conducive to alternative life paths, especially for women. Although LAT may be developing as an alternative to marriage and cohabitation, its occurrence during a time in history that countries have experienced a second demographic transition suggests larger forces at work. In the second demographic transition, the opportunities women have to make improvements in their lives via education and career opportunities have reverberating consequences for family structure and the dynamics of family and intimate relationships. This is evidenced by the increasing occurrence of cohabitation, divorce, and childfree couples. Since research on LAT relationships from different countries shows similar gendered patterns, it is likely that LAT is, arguably, a new relationship marker of the second demographic transition. While evolving social structures across historical time help to explain change in some aspects of women’s lives, I argue that the structure of gender within intimate relationships has been slower to change. While the majority of women I interviewed personally benefited from increasing education and career opportunities (i.e., most had post-high school degrees and professional careers), the majority of both men and women experienced traditionally gendered life paths that included doing family in a SNAF way. Instead of having egalitarian intimate relationships, some of the female participants’ experiences of past and current intimate relationships reflects continuing structural gendered inequities. This is evidenced by how women continually manage and resist their current partners’ power in the relationship, or their own propensity to cater to their partner’s needs. In short, despite changing roles for women,

80 marriage remains a traditionally gendered institution, which may help to explain women’s aversion to marriage and their motivation for choosing a LAT relationship in later life. The life course perspective offers a useful framework with which to understand the development and experience of LAT relationships for men and women in later life. The concept of personal biography and historical time illuminate how the lives of the men and women have unfolded over time, with relationship trajectories that have become more varied: the presence or absence of marriage, cohabitation, remarriage, LAT, and relationship dissolutions through divorce or widowhood. The life course perspective’s emphasis on place in the social structure suggests how the experience of relationships is gendered. In the future, it is a distinct possibility that LAT will simply become an additional way couples partner across the life course as it becomes more institutionalized, as is marriage and, to a growing extent, cohabitation. Results of this study lend support for this contention, suggesting LAT is a growing relationship phenomenon, likely emerging from historical and structural shifts that are bringing about more egalitarian gender relations, (namely, modernization and the second demographic transition), which are helping to create multiple ways to partner and to do family. Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research As is the case for all research, this study has some limitations. One obvious limitation of this study, as well as the LAT research in general, is the sample of predominantly white European and highly educated older adults. In addition, my entirely white European sample was not only highly educated, the majority had incomes in retirement that exceeded $50,000 year. These characteristics of individuals in LAT relationships may suggest that this arrangement is largely an option for white, affluent older adults. It is unclear, however, how race and social class impact formation and maintenance of LAT relationships. Existing research shows, for example, that race impacts the formation and dissolution of intimate relationships, especially for Blacks; when compared to Whites, Blacks are less likely to be married and transition from cohabitation to marriage, and more likely to divorce and report a lower desire to marry (Cherlin, 1998; Sweeney & Phillips, 2004; Manning & Smock, 1995; Trent & South, 2003). In addition to race, research suggests that socioeconomic status also effects union formation and type of union formed (e.g., Sassler & Miller, 2011). Race and social class may play a role in the experience of LAT relationships as well. However, no conclusions can be made about the role race and social class may play in the formation and maintenance of LAT relationships without more

81 representative data on this type of relationship or qualitative studies that include a more diverse population of older adults. In addition to the homogeneity of the sample in terms of race-ethnicity and social class, another limitation of this research involves the area from which I recruited participants. With the exception of one man and one woman, the remaining 18 participants resided in one of two Midwestern states, and in the same geographic location within each state. It is unclear how my findings may have varied if I had sampled from a different region of the country. However, it is important to recognize that what I learned about forming and maintaining LAT relationships is specific to a sample of individuals living in the Midwest. Another limitation of this study concerns the unit of analysis. My unit of analysis was the experience of individual men and women in LAT relationships, and I attempted to recruit and interview men and women who were not coupled with each other as the most straightforward way to maintain my focus on the individual experience. However, I had to sacrifice that aim in order to recruit enough men and women into the study, and my final sample did included seven couples. The unit of analysis remained individual men and women, and I added procedures to help ensure each individual was participating in similarly structured interviews; this included participants having no knowledge ahead of time about the questions or topics to be discussed, instructions to the couple to not discuss the interview until both partners had been interviewed, and letting the participants know that I would not share what I learned in the interview with their partner. Despite these efforts, I cannot say with certainty that no individuals prematurely discussed the interview with their partner, or that what I learned from one individual was not influenced by the fact that I had interviewed or would also be interviewing his or her partner. In order to determine the ways in which men and women are doing and redoing gender, I relied on the accounts from the men and women I interviewed. At first glance, this choice of method appears to be incongruent with West and Zimmerman’s (1987) constructivist and interactionist approach to understanding gender. Wikes and Emmison (2007) meta analysis of the scholarship using West and Zimmerman’s concept of doing gender reveals that most of the existing research draws on interviews or quantitative research questionnaires, and not the observational methods originally prescribed by West and Zimmerman (2009). However, by utilizing Risman’s (1987) interactional level of analysis for understanding gender as structure and operationalizing gender conformance to traditional gendered expectations as doing gender

82 and resistance as redoing gender, I believe I am approximating what is meant by doing and redoing gender. And, my conceptualization of doing gender and my method of examining it is consistent with how it is being used in current family studies and gerontology literature (e.g., Walzer, 2008; Lodge & Umberson, 2012). Results of this study suggest several avenues for future research on LAT relationships. First, inclusion of this relationship type in longitudinal studies is essential. One of the major challenges to learning more about LAT relationships in the U.S. is the general exclusion of LAT or its negligible treatment in longitudinal studies. Very few studies ask older adults about relationship types other than marriage or cohabitation. Although some longitudinal studies collect data on non-marital and non-cohabiting relationships (e.g., General Social Survey, National Survey of Families and Households, and the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project), the extent of the data collected on these relationships is less than that for relationships in which a residence is shared. For example, the NSHAP does not interview non-residential partners, but it does interview cohabiting and marital partners. In addition, the duration of non- marital and non-cohabiting relationships are typically not tracked over time in longitudinal surveys. The development of LAT as a way to partner in later life is occurring during a historical time period in which social, cultural, and demographic factors are simultaneously changing. LAT may be developing as an alternative to marriage because marriage has remained essentially a highly gendered, interdependent and integrated relationship in the U.S. Another distinct possibility is structural lag, in that the evolution of the institution of marriage has not kept pace with the cultural changes that make an interdependent and integrated marriage less desirable, especially for older women. To help answer these questions, future research must longitudinally assess the development of LAT relationships, the gender attitudes of men and women over time, and the evolution of marriage, including the extent to which it is becoming more egalitarian and individualized. It is possible that LAT attracts a certain demographic or is only a possibility for certain older adults. It may be particularly attractive to older women because of their tendency to be more agentic and assertive with age (or less traditionally gendered), or to those who have a more egalitarian approach to gender roles. It is a distinct possibility that a woman’s ability to be in a LAT relationship and redo gender is in direct correlation with her ability to live independently.

83 LAT may only be an option for those who have the health and wealth to continue living by themselves. Research to date hints at this possibility, but without more representative data on LAT relationships, this is a tentative finding at best. Similar to the study of the evolution and dissolution of cohabitation and marital relationships, it is essential to begin learning more about entering into a LAT relationship (e.g., post-marital dissolution), maintenance of a LAT relationship, and moving from a LAT relationship into a co-residential one. Exploring the dynamic of LAT relationships would allow researchers to identify predictors of LAT stability as well as what pushes or pulls these couples apart or into cohabitation and marriage in later life. Without longitudinal studies on relationships that include maintenance of LAT relationships and transitioning from LAT to co-residential relationship types, we will not know which push and pull factors are at work in maintaining LAT or transitioning from LAT to marriage or cohabitation. For example, it may be that couples who start out as LAT partners progress to a co-residential relationship in order to save money on living expenses. Is it a case of wanting to marry and/or live together (as was the case for the one couple in my study who did marry), or is it a case of needing to marry and/or live together for efficiency (or some combination of the two)? Understanding how older adults maintain and alter their relationship arrangements, including LAT, is an important aspect of relationship research in later life. Expanding relationship research to include LAT is complicated by the fact that there is currently no name for this type of relationship in the U.S. However, this lack of institutionalization also provides a unique opportunity to examine how older men and women negotiate gender identities and gender roles in an intimate relationship that lacks cultural norms and expectations during a time of life that is less constrained by the gender norms and expectations present earlier in life. For example, what I label as women redoing gender by not conforming to gendered expectations surrounding caregiving may be a sign of changing gender structure in an intimate relationship that lacks institutionalization. Finally, the directions for future research will continue to benefit from the types of frameworks I utilized for this study: the life course perspective and gender as social structure. The combination of these two approaches provides a powerful way to examine gender structure at all levels of society taking into account the historical context, gender socialization, and changing gender norms and expectations that

84 occur with aging and the consequences the dynamic gender structure has on families, including intimate relationships. Conclusions In this study, I set out to examine how gender is manifested in the formation and maintenance of LAT relationships in later life. My findings suggest that gender does matter, and this is especially the case for women. This appears to be a pattern in many Western nations, but this study adds a theoretical explanation for women’s roles in this new relationships form: LAT is a site that offers women the opportunity to redo gender by circumventing gendered expectations often inherent in co-residential relationships. This finding also adds to the existing literature on the ways in which couples redo gender in other relationship contexts, such as parenting post-divorce. In addition to understanding the role gender plays in LAT relationships, I also discovered that older men and women are drawn to LAT because it provides the individualized qualities that they find particularly attractive in later life. This finding is a unique contribution to the literature. Previous studies demonstrate how LAT is a relationship that offers couples the opportunity to balance autonomy with intimacy. However, I ague that LAT is not just a relationship form, but a new way to do family: older men and women in LAT relationships are redoing family by maximizing individualism within an intimate relationship. The life course perspective illuminates how gender as social structure has indeed changed in the past half-century with respect to women’s roles in family life and society, and the earlier lives of some of the women I interviewed reflect these changes (e.g., never marrying or having children). However, this study also demonstrates that marriage remains a traditionally gendered institution which neither the men nor the women in my study are eager to enter into in later life. Instead of negotiating ways to “redo” marriage in later life, men and women are forming and maintaining a new relationship type that already offers the individualized qualities that Yodanis and Lauer (2014) suggest are missing from American marriages. In addition to contributing to a theoretical understanding of how gender is manifested in LAT relationships, this study is the first of its kind to explore LAT relationships in the U.S. using qualitative methods. This study contributes significantly to our knowledge of what this relationship means to American men and women in later life. The participants in this study demonstrate an ongoing need and desire for an intimate relationship in later life, but one that is

85 on his and her own terms. And, for the women in the study, these terms are unique. Women want to put the gendered experience of marital relationships behind them, and instead, maintain control over the ways in which they will do gender in later life relationships. “Doing” LAT not only represents a new family practice, but also a site for older men and women to, in the words of one participant, “have their cake and eat it, too.” Knowing how LAT offers men and women individualized qualities desirable in later life, and the unique experience for women to resist conforming to traditional gender norms and expectations, I conclude that gender and age do matter in the formation and maintenance of LAT relationships. However, as is the case for most gerontological research, these findings are bound by history and cohort membership. How gender and age will manifest for future cohorts of older adults who repartner will likely depend upon our culture’s evolving gender norms and the degree to which marriage develops into a more egalitarian arrangement in the U.S., especially for women.

86 REFERENCES Beck, U. & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (1995). The normal chaos of love. Cambridge, UK: Polity. Bell, F. C. (1997). Social Security area population projections. 1997 (Actuarial Study 112). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Bianchi, S. M. (2014). A demographic perspective on family change. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 6(1), 35-44. Birks, M. & Mills, J. (2011). Grounded theory: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc. Birren J. E. (1999). Theories of aging: A personal perspective. In V. L. Bengtson & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of theories of aging (pp. 459-471). New York: Springer. Blackstone, A. (2014). Doing family without having kids. Sociology Compass, 8(1), 52-62. Bjork, S. (2015). Doing, redoing or undoing masculinity? Swedish men in the filial care of aging parents. Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 23(1), 20-35. Borell, K. & Karlsson, S. G. (2003). Reconceptualizing intimacy and ageing: Living apart together. In S. Arber, K. Davidson, & J. Ginn (Eds.) Gender and ageing: Changing roles and relationships (pp. 47-63). Maidenhead: Open University Press. Brown, S. L. & Shinohara, S. K. (2014). Dating relationships in older adulthood: A national perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75(5), 1194-1202. Bulcroft, R. A. & Bulcroft, K. A. (1991). The nature and functions of dating in later life. Research on Aging, 13(2), 244-260. Carr, D. (2004). The desire to date and remarry among older widows and widowers. Journal Of Marriage and Family, 66(4), 1051-1068. Carrington, C. (1999). No place like home: Relationships and family life among lesbians and gay men. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Chambers, D. (2012). A sociology of family life. Cambridge: Polity Press. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage Publications, Ltd. Charmaz, K. (2002). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context & method (pp. 675-694). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Chelsey, N. (2011). Stay-at-home fathers and breadwinning mothers: Gender, couple dynamics, and social change. Gender & Society, 25(5), 642-664. Cherlin, A. J. (1998). Marriage and marital dissolution among Black Americans. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 29(1), 147-158. Cherlin, A. J. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(4), 848-861. Cherlin, A. J. (2009). The marriage-go-round: The state of marriage and family in America today. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

87 Coale, A. (1973). The demographic transition. International Population Conference, Vol. I, Belgium: IUSSP. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches, 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Duncome, J. & Marsden, D. (1993). Love and intimacy: The gender division of emotion and “emotion work.” A neglected aspect of sociological discussion of heterosexual relationships. Sociology, 27(2), 221-241. Davidson, K. (2001). Late life widowhood, selfishness and new partnership choices: A gendered perspective. Ageing and Society, 21(3), 297-317. Davidson, K. (2002). Gender differences in new partnership choices and constraints for older widows and widowers. Ageing International, 27(4), 43-60. De Jong Gierveld, J. (2002). The dilemma of repartnering: Considerations of older men and women entering new intimate relationships in later life. Ageing International, 27(4), 61- 78. Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed) (pp. 1-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Depner, C. & Ingersoll-Dayton, B. (1985). Conjugal social support: Patterns in later life. Journal of Gerontology , 40(6), 761-766. Deutsch, F. M. (2007). Undoing gender. Gender & Society, (21)1, 106-127. Dey, J. (1999). Grounding grounded theory: Guidelines for qualitative inquiry. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Di Leonardo, M. (1987). The female world of cards and holidays: Women, families and the work of kinship. Signs, (12)3, 440-453. Dickson, F. C., Hughes, P. C., & Walker, K. L. (2005). An exploratory investigation into dating among later-life women. Western Journal of Communication, 69(1), 67-82. Duncan, S. (2014). Women’s agency in living apart together: Constraint, strategy, and vulnerability. The Sociological Review. Advance online publication doi: 10.1111/1467- 954X.12184 Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (1990). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Publishing Co. Funk, L. M. & Kobayashi, K. M. (2014). From motivations to accounts: An interpretive analysis of “living apart together” relationships in mid- to later-life couples. Journal of Family Issues. Advance online publication doi:10.1177/0192513X14529432. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self identity. Stanford, CA: Sandford University Press. Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

88 Gutmann, D. L. (1987). Reclaimed powers: Toward a new psychology of men and women in later life. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Hagestad, G. (2003). Interdependent lives and relationships in changing times: A life-course view of families and aging. In R. Settersten (Ed.) Invitation to the life course: Toward new understandings of later life (pp. 135-159). Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing. Hochschild, A. R. (1989). The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home. New York: Viking. Hoepfl, M. C. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education researchers. Journal of Technology Education, 9(1), 47-63. Huyck, M. H. & Gutmann, D. L. (1992). Thirtysomething years of marriage: Understanding husbands and wives in enduring relationships. Family Perspective, 26(2), 249-265. Huyck, M. H. (1996). Continuities and discontinuities in gender identity. In V. Bengston (Ed.) Adulthood and aging: Research on continuities and discontinuities (pp. 98-121). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, Inc. Jones, C. J., Peskin, H., & Livson, N. (2011). Men’s and women’s change and individual differences in change in femininity from age 33 to 85: Results from the intergenerational studies. Journal of Adult Development, 18(4),155-163. Karlsson, S. G. & Borell, K. (2002). Intimacy and autonomy, gender and ageing: Living apart together. Ageing International, 27(4), 11-26. Karlsson, S. G. & Borell, K. (2005). A home of their own: Women’s boundary work in LAT- relationships. Journal of Aging Studies, 19, 73-84. Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications Inc. Lesthaeghe, R. (1995). The second demographic transition in western countries: An interpretation. In K. Oppenheim Mason, & A. M. Jensen (Eds.), Gender and family change in industrialized countries (pp. 17-40). Oxford: Claredon Press. Lesthaeghe, R. (2010). The unfolding story of the second demographic transition. Paper to be presented at the Conference on Fertility in the History of the 20th Century - Trends, Theories, Public Discourse, and Policies, January 21-23, 2010, Berlin. Downloaded 3/30/2014 http://sdt.psc.isr.umich.edu/ Lesthaeghe, R. (2014). The second demographic transition: A concise overview of its development. PNAS, 111(51). Lodge, A. C. & Umberson, D. (2012). All shook up: Sexuality of mid- to late-life married couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(3), 428-443. Lorber, J. (1998). Gender inequality: Feminist theories and politics. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Pub. Loscocco, K., & Walzer, S. (2013), Gender and the culture of heterosexual marriage in the United States. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 5(1), 1–14. Lynott, P. P., & McCandless, N. J. (2000). The impact of age vs. life experience on the gender role attitudes of women in different cohorts. Journal of Women & Aging, 12 (1/2), 5-21.

89 Lyssens-Danneboom, V. & Mortelmans, K. (2014). Living apart together and money: New partnerships, traditional gender roles. Journal of Marriage and Family, (76)5, 949-966. Malta, S. & Farquharson, K. (2014). The initiation and progression of late-life romantic relationships. Journal of Sociology, (50)3, 237-251. Manning, W. D. & Smock, P. J. (1995). Why marry? Race and the transition to marriage among cohabitors. Demography, (32)4, 509-520. Maykut, P. & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophic and practical guide. London: Farmer Press. Merriam S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Moorman, S. M., Booth, A., & Fingerman, K. L. (2006). Women’s romantic relationship after widowhood. Journal of Family Issues, 27(9), 1281-1304. Morgan, D. (1996). Family connections: An introduction to family studies. Cambridge: Polity Press. Nelson, M. K. (2006). Single mothers “do” family. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(4), 781- 795. Oswald, R., Kuvalanka, K., Blume, L., & Berkowitz, D. (2009). Queering “the family.” In S. Lloyd, A. Few, & K. Allen (Eds.), The handbook of feminist family studies (pp. 43-56). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. O’Brien, M., Pillemer, J., Hatfield, E., & Le, Y. (2008). The endurance of love: Passionate and companionate love in newlywed and long-term marriages. Interpersona: An international journal on Personal Relationships, 2, 35-64. Powers, E. A. & Bultena, G. L. (1976). Sex differences in intimate of old age. Jounral of Marriage and Family, 38(4), 739-747. Risman, B. J. (1998). Gender vertigo: American families in transition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Risman, B. J. (2004). Gender as social structure: Theory wrestling with activism. Gender & Society, 18(4), 429-450. Risman, B. J. (2009). From doing to undoing: Gender as we know it. Gender & Society, 23(1), 81-84. Roberts, B. W., Helson, R., & Klohnen, E. C. (2002). Personality development and growth in women across 30 years: Three perspectives. Journal of Personality, 70(1), 79-102. Sassler, S. (2010). Partnering across the life course: Sex, relationships, and mate selection. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 557-575. Sassler, S. & Miller, A. J. (2011). Class differences in cohabitation processes. Family Relations, (60)2, 163-177. Settersten, R. (2003). Propositions and controversies in life-course scholarship. In R. Settersten (Ed.) Invitation to the life course: Toward new understandings of later life (pp. 15-38). Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing.

90 Sheets, V. L. (2014). Passion for life: Self-expansion and passionate love across the life span. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(7), 958-974. Smart, C. & Neale, B. (1999). Family fragments? Cambridge: Polity Press. Smith, D.E. (1993). The standard North American family: SNAF as an ideological code. Journal of Family Issues, 14(1), 50-65. Stevens, N. (2002). Re-engaging: New partnerships in late-life widowhood. Ageing International, 27(4), 27-42. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research, Second Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Strohm, C., Seltzer, J., Cochran, S., & Mays V. (2009). Living apart together in the United States. Demographic Research, 21(7), 177-214. Strough, J., Leszczynski, J. P., Neely, T. L., Flinn, J. A., & Margrett, J. (2007). From adolescence to later life: Femininity, masculinity, and androgeny in six age groups. Sex Roles, 57(5/6), 385-396. Strazdins, L., & Broom, D. H. (2004). Acts of love (and work): Gender imbalance in emotional work and women’s psychological distress. Journal of Family Issues, (25)3, 356-378. Sweeney, M. M., & Phillips, J. A. (2004). Understanding racial differences in marital disruption: Recent trends and explanations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(1), 239-250. Treas, J., & Drobnic, S. (2010). Dividing the domestic: Men, women, and household work in cross-national perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Trent, K., & South, S. J. (2003). Spousal alternatives and marital relations. Journal of Family Issues, 24(6), 787-810. U.S. Census Bureau (2012), Current Population Survey, 2012 Annual Social and Economic Supplement. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. U.S. Census Bureau (2013a). Estimated Median Age at First Marriage, by Sex: 1890 to the Present. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/hhes/families/data/marital.html on 9/20/2014. U.S. Census Bureau (2013b). Marital Status of the Population 15 Years Old and Over, by Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin: 1950 to Present. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/hhes/families/data/marital.html on 9/20/2014. Upton-Davis, K. (2013). Subverting gendered norms of cohabitation: Living apart together for women over 45. Journal of Gender Studies, DOI: 10.1080/09589236.2013.861346 Van de Kaa, D. (1988). The second U.S. Census Bureau (2008) revisited: Theories and expectations. Symposium on Population Change and European Society, Florencia, IUSSP. Vespa, J. (2009). Gender ideology construction: A life course and intersectional approach. Gender & Society, 23(3), 363-387.

91 Vespa, J., Lewis, J. M., & Kreider, R. M. (2013). America’s families and living arrangements: 2012. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-570.pdf on 11/2/2014. Walzer, S. (2008). Redoing gender through divorce. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, (25)1, 5-21. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, (1)2, 125-151. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (2009). Accounting for doing gender. Gender & Society, (23)1, 112-122. Wang, W., Parker, K., & Taylor, P. (2013). Breadwinner Moms. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2013/05/Breadwinner_moms_final.pdf on 2/1/2015. Wikes, R. & Emmison, M. (2007). They are all ‘doing gender’ but are they all passing? A case study of the appropriation of a sociological concept. The Sociological Review, 55(2), 311- 330. Yodanis, C., & Lauer, S. (2014). Is marriage individualized? What couples actually do. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 6(2), 184-197.

92 APPENDICES

Appendix A. Recruitment flyer

Are you “Going Steady” in Later Life?

Many men and women in later life are foregoing marriage and cohabitation, and instead are:  forming serious romantic relationships;  maintaining separate living arrangements; and Can you answer “Yes” to these questions?  remaining unmarried. We would Yes like  to No learn Are more you about60-years these of agelong or-term older? steady relationships!  Yes  No Are you currently in a long-term steady relationship?  Yes  No Are you and your partner not married?  Yes  No Do you and your partner maintain separate homes?

If you answered “Yes” to all of these questions then you are eligible to participate in a research study on “going steady” in later life! Participating involves up to two individual interviews, taking approximately one to two hours of your time. Both partners are not required to participate, but if both are interested, separate interviews will be conducted with each partner.

If you are interested in participating or learning more about this research study, contact Denise Brothers at 513-255-2221 or visit the Facebook study page by searching for: Going Steady in Later Life.

This study has been approved by Miami University’s Institutional Review Board (protocol #09-588). If you have questions about your rights as a research participant in this study, you may contact Miami University’s Office of Research and Scholarship, Oxford, Ohio at 513-529-3600. If you have questions about this research project, please contact Denise Brothers at 513-255-2221 or [email protected].

93 Appendix B. Profile sheet “Going Steady” Study Profile Sheet Participant number: _____ 1. Sex: Female  Male 

2. What is your month and year of birth? ______

3. Number of children: ______

4. Number of grandchildren: ______and great gradchildren:______

5. Where do you live? Own home  In someone else’s home  Own apartment  Other ______

6. Do you live alone? ______If not, who lives with you? ______

7. How long have you lived there? ______years

8. Education:  Less than high school degree  High school degree  Some college  Four-year college degree  Masters’ degree or Ph.D.

9. Are you employed or ever been employed? If yes, please explain.______

94 How long have you been retired? ______

10. Annual Income:

 Less than $5,000  $20,001 - $29,999  $5,001 - $10,000  $30,000 – $39,999  $10,001 - $15,000  $40,000 - $49,999  $15,001 - $20,000  $50,000 and over

11. Dates and lengths of past relationships, including your current one. Please indicate how the marriage or relationship dissolved (divorce/ or death of spouse/partner) Relationship/ Marriage Divorce/breakup Death ______

______

______

95 Appendix C. First interview guide

“Going Steady” in Later Life First Interview Guide

1. (a)First I would like you to talk about the words or language you use to describe the relationship you have with ______.

(Probes: what do you call the relationship; what do you call each other; what do others call it?)

(b) Speaking of family, how do your friends and family feel about the relationship?

2. (a)Talk about how your relationship started and developed into what it is today.

(b)What are your thoughts about moving in together or marrying and living together?

(c)How do you think ______feels about moving in together or marrying and living together? How do you know?

(d)Describe any scenarios that would make you, ______and/or the both of you to want (or not want) to move in together or marry each other?

3. (a)How does being in this relationship with ______compare to other past relationships?

(Probes: decision making, conflict or arguments, emotional and financial support, gender roles)

96 (b)Think back to when you were younger, what types of qualities were you looking for in a partner, and why? Fast forward to now, what would you say you were looking for in a partner, and why?

(c)In what ways (if any) have your relationship needs changed with age?

(Probes: would current arrangement have worked when you were younger; would relationship arrangement when young work for you now; why and why not?)

(d)What would you tell a friend who was your age who was considering this type of relationship? How would your advice be different if it was your 20-something grandchild?

(Probes: what makes it work, what are the pros and cons, advice different for men and women friends, advice difference for younger people?)

4. (a)Describe for me what you and your partner did together in the last two weeks.

(Probes: other things not mentioned; how and where do you spend time together; house keys, sleeping arrangements; sex; who pays for what, vacations, family?)

(b)Tell me who pays for what? Do you maintain separate finances?

(Probes, who pays for meals, vacations, financial arrangement.) (leave for end)

5. (a) Can you talk about what you hope or imagine for this relationship in the future?

(b) Imagine a day when you partner may become ill or disabled and requires care. What do you expect our role to be in his or her care? Have you thought about it? Why or why not?

97 (c) Imagine a day when you become ill or disabled and require care. What will you expect from your partner as far as care? Have you thought about it? Why or why not?

6. In some European countries your relationship would be called a “living apart together” or LAT relationship. Have you ever heard this term? What do you think about it? Is it a term you would consider using to describe your relationship? Why or why not?

98 Appendix D. Second interview guide “Going Steady” in Later Life Second Interview Guide

1. Are you still in a relationship with the same person? If not, briefly describe the circumstances of your breakup.

2. Do the two of you have the same arrangement (live apart and aren't married)? If not, and you have married and/or moved in together, briefly describe what precipitated the change.

3.Have either of you experienced any changes (e.g., health, financial, within your family) which have altered (temporarily or permanently) the arrangement? In other words, have there been new obstacles in or challenges to maintaining living separately? For example, some couples may be experiencing caregiving for one another (or for other family members) due to changes in health, or one of the partners may have experienced financial losses that require relocating their residence, for other partners, maybe a family member who previously lived with them, has moved out, or vice versa.

99 Appendix E. Third interview guide

“Going Steady” in Later Life Third Interview Schedule

1. First, I’d like to get an update on your relationship with ______? (probe for: changes in the relationship, how decisions were made to make changes, how concerns she/he had in the first interview are negotiated, resolved, or coped with)

2. (TRIAL QUESTION) Did you talk with a girlfriend or sister (male friend or brother) when you made or were making changes to your relationship? Tell me about that conversation – how how did it come about, what was said, what was it like? (probe for concerns, reactions, advice)

3. I would like to get your reactions to some of the different things that participants say about living apart together and their reactions to cohabiting and/or being married. I’ve grouped them into four categories. Are there things that I haven’t captured about these relationships that you’ve experienced? (Probe for ways the categories/examples fit (or not) with their experience and/or their partner’s; probe for stories about this, “I’m as interested in what is different as I am what you share.” ) (see Appendix F)

4. In analyzing the transcripts from all the interviews, I’m working on coming up with a general understanding of how these relationships are formed and maintained in later life. Let’s talk about some patterns I’m seeing. (Probe for reactions, how the patterns capture (or not) their relationship), how could the patterns of categories relate to one another?). (see Appendix F) If “LAT by DEFAULT” is one way to understand the formation of LAT, what’s it like to form (and maintain) a relationship that lacks a label or name (or is defined more by what it is not (cohabiting or marriage) than what it is? How do you know “how to do what you do” in the relationship? (Probe for how lack of clear roles and social norms are negotiated, explore themes Appendix F)

5. What do you think being a woman (man) in your 60s (70s, 80s) has to do with the decisions you made and continue to make to be in this type of a relationship at this particular life stage? (Probe for both age and gender)

100 Appendix F. Categories of concepts from initial data analysis

CATEGORIES Explanations and Reactions to Maintaining LAT (vs. cohabiting and/or marriage) The Passage of Time Needing time (like more time together) before considering cohabiting and/or marriage. “I’m not ready to consider marriage period. Not just to Marion. I don’t know of anyone I would prefer to Marion. I really do like her, but it’s just getting over that hump of marriage, I’m not sure.” Jack (84) “I’m just not there. I’ve thought about this. The idea comes to mind occasionally. We get along well together, we do so many things…then you get into things like, I don’t know, selling houses, or things like that. I don’t know. I’m just not there yet. I’m not ready for that. Um…I’m not opposed to it…I just, right now, I can’t do it.” Dennis (69) Needing time (like more time to pass) for things to resolve themselves before cohabiting and/or living together “…we have talked about, you know, at some point, as (name of daughter) moves on to college and I begin to wind down my…career…that’s the point at which we have talked about me moving in with her.” Thomas (65) The Role of the Living Environment(s) Enough space: having a large enough space to share “ I would consider…it’s possible Steve and I would live together. I mean, we’d have to divide things out a bit so there would be…there needs to be space…Maybe give him the downstairs, you know, have a division.” (Fran, 65) “…if we ever live together it would have to be a bigger physical space. My physical space is really important to me. You see this space. It’s not a big space, living area, but it’s space. And he’s big! And I think, what’s that gonna be like? Gloria (69) Aesthetics: taste, appearance, quality of home, furnishings, decorating “…I don’t think it would work if we lived together…We’re so different. For instance, the man has, I don’t know, he probably owns 30 bobble heads. I can’t live with bobble heads in my house! Where would I put them? Nancy (59). “I don’t like his house at all, that is one reason we don’t live together…it’s not attractive…it’s not pretty.” Mary (85) Logistics: the actual process and work involved in combining two households. “She’s been there about 20 years, and I’m here for 35 years. Everything we have there is some attachment to…All around the house are memories and she has the same thing. Trying to [decide] what to get rid of here? I’m not ready for that.” Jack (84)

101 “We did talk about that. And the problem we had was how can we make it work, when he has [his job] two hours away…He likes where he lives because his parents are getting older, and he wants to be there to help, and he has a brother-in-law with MS and his sister lives a few blocks away, so he tries to help them when he can.” Susan (68) “I mean, we’re both in a place in our lives where we like our things the way they are and to merge would totally disrupt both of us.” Nancy (59) Maximizing Compatibility in the Relationship Lifestyle differences: “…we know we can live together easily. We don’t get on each other’s nerves, we know that already. Now, I don’t know about that [living together fulltime]; it’s sort of nice that we each have our own place to go to because he is rather compulsive and he’s overly neat and I love a neat person, I try to stay neat, too. But he is more compulsive about that than I am…He’d [also] have to be nicer to Maggie [her cat].” Jean (73) Interpersonal differences or challenges: “He’s a very intense person, and I’m a little more laidback…Well, you know, I think…more control, he likes to be in control of things. It’s probably what’s kept us apart, because he likes to be in control.” Susan (68) “But I have to tell you that I could not marry him and live with him 24/7. As much as I care for him, I’m very independent and I had a wonderful, wonderful marriage. But I could not live with him, because he’s too set in his ways, and I know that I could not change things…they aren’t things I couldn’t live with, but I would have to change.” Betty (84) “…he’s got anger patterns that are there…and he shuts down…there’s enough discomfort with those things…and I’m full of people, and I’m full of activity, and he likes it when I’m just quiet, and that’s not really me.” Sharon (64) “So, [my family] is not a quarreling family. And he is from a quarreling family, so trying to put that together…he doesn’t like the fact that I don’t fight, I don’t like the fact that he wants to fight. So that sometimes brings together, um, conflict.” (Fran 65) Maintaining Autonomy Independence “Ah, I wouldn’t be totally against it. I mean, it would have to have a lot of space around it. I can see people living together, I think there might be economic reasons to do that, I think there might be health reasons to do that. I can see it as a possibility, but I have none of those needs, so…” Fran (65) Alone time: “Alone time is a delicious thing. I would have so much less alone time. I would…what I do with my time, I would have another person to consider. I would be less selfish, and money would be different. I would spend my money totally differently, and I don’t think I would like that.” Nancy (59)

102 “I guess I enjoy that time alone…Whether it be reflecting, or whatever, reading, or whatever. I guess I’ll be selfish about it and do what I wanna do…when I wanna do it. And I think at this age, that’s important.” Dennis (69). “We’re ourselves, but we’re together. We have our away time where she can do other things, and I can just be sloppy…I have to put [things] away which I would expect to do if we were together.” Mike (84) “…we both need a little bit of private space, her maybe more so even than I. So, right now the kind of part-time living arrangement is actually quite functional for both of us.” Thomas (65) Free or “me” time: “I’m much stronger alone than I am with somebody is what I found out. It has a lot to do…is why I’m so, it’s so much a part of our living situation.” Nancy (59) “…I’m not ready to marry anybody, you know, and John may very well be the best offer that comes along in terms of my, you know, future, but I just need to know more about myself, and have some time to make my own decisions.” Sharon (64) “I like having my own place. I like being able to retreat…I like being alone, you know, you don’t have to explain to someone what you are doing or not doing.” Steve, 62 Minimizing (incessant, constant) consideration of another “Everyday cooperation, every hour cooperation. And I don’t always want to cooperate.” Mary (85) “I like having time, like today, a whole day that I don’t have to please him at all, that I can do whatever I want to do.” Marion (73)

OVERARCHING PATTERNS OF FORMING AND MAINTAINING LAT “LAT… by DEFAULT”: LAT is the option “selected” automatically, because the alternative(s) (marriage and/or cohabitation) is/are: Not an option If it wasn’t for LAT, there would currently be no relationship at all; this is true for those who do not believe in unmarried cohabiting, as well as for those who find marriage and/or cohabiting undesirable based on their personality (or pre-disposition toward relationships), their life stage, or their particular situation. Undecided upon: could maybe envision cohabiting and/or marriage in the future, but not right now. by DESIGN” or in DEFENSE” of lifestyle: minimize differences, maximize compatibility, avoid difficulties of combining households

103 by DEVELOPMENT”: relationship stage leading to cohabiting and/or marriage once obstacles or issues are overcome/resolved

“LAT by DEFAULT” How do you know “how to do what you do” in the relationship?

Labels or Language: “That’s an interesting question because it’s a problem, because there isn’t a good or commonly accepted term, you know. Cause I’m too old to have a girlfriend, right?” Steve (62) “Right now I just sort of refer to her as my close friend. I’m not really happy with that either but until I find a better word... Maybe if our relationship changes that will make it easier.” Robert (65) “We usually say [call each other] ‘my boyfriend’ or ‘my girlfriend’ with a smile, because we really don’t know what to call the relationship.” Stanley (89) “Tricky. This is something we struggle with and laugh about because boyfriend/girlfriend just makes you sound juvenile. Significant other is sort of legal, so he will usually call me his fiancé when he’s introducing me to other people. I say ‘this is my sweetheart.’ I encourage him to say that, but it hasn’t caught on.” Nancy (59) Finances: “…when you grow up, you ask a girl out, you’re gonna pay to go to the movie. I don’t even think twice about it. But there are times where she’ll want to treat, and I let her.” Dennis (69) “I have more money than he does…I was like, ‘Let me pay for this, you don’t have to pay’ and he’d say, ‘I feel like I should take you out to dinner’ We started a checking account…we both put in $500 a month in the account and it basically covers traveling…I said, ‘Hey, this is silly. Let’s just…and you can…if you feel like it’s the manly thing to do, you whip out the card and pay for it.’” Sharon (64) “That’s pretty much everything we do is Dutch as best we can do.” Mike (83) Caregiving: “It’s something that’s just begun to be on my landscape. Both of us…are in relatively good health…I’m not sure how that will be [when one needs care]. I mean, because we’ve been both really happy not being together, like, you wanna make the last 5 years of your life miserable? Come on in!” Barbara (62) “No. It’s the elephant in the room. We haven’t talked about it [caregiving for one another]…I want to be as helpful as I can. I really deeply love her. She has different levels of care at (CCRC).” Stanley (89) “I’d have to be there for her. I just…I don’t…one part of me says I don’t ever wanna go through what I went through again [caregiving for first spouse], but we don’t have

104 choices sometimes, so the good, the bad, the ugly. You gotta do it. You gotta be there. Dennis (69) “If we were married we would take care of each other. I think we both feel very strongly about that. I think if something happened to her where she needed assistance in a nursing home or whatnot I would be willing to help on that, but I don’t know if I could do it like I did with [first wife]; take care of her at home.” Jack (84) “If anything happened to Mike…If he was unable to live by himself, physically, medically unable, I would bring him here in a New York minute, and then if he wanted…if it involved marriage, if that were a part of it, I’d do that, too.” Jean (73) Proposals and Marriage “Maybe we would get married and live together. Maybe we would live together and not get married. Maybe we would get married and not live together.” Gloria (68) “Yes, Craig really wanted to get married. In fact, he gave me a ring, and I kept it a couple of weeks and then I said, ‘Craig, I don’t really want to get married. It’s just…I’m not ready, really, to get married’…I think he wanted to get married. But I don’t think now he does. It just isn’t an issue.” Susan (68) “For both of us, it’s like we’re married. We just don’t live together…we do everything together, because we are both dedicated to each other…we know all there is to know about each other – just like if you were married, it’s just we don’t live in the same house.” Susan (68) How do you know “how to do what you do” in the relationship?

105 Appendix G. Informed consent form

Informed Consent “Going Steady” Study I understand that I am participating in a research study on older couples who are in committed relationships, yet remain living apart. This study is part of a dissertation project for a doctoral student in social gerontology in the Department of Sociology and Gerontology at Miami University. The researcher seeks to understand the motives of older adults for being in this type of a relationship, and how rules and roles are negotiated in this type partnership. I understand and agree to the following:  I agree to be interviewed about my experience in a relationship.  The interview should take one to two hours.  My participation in this project is completely voluntary.  I do not have to provide answers to all of the questions asked.  My answers (in addition to others’ who participate in this study) will be used by the researcher to understand this type of a relationship. My real name (or names of my partner or others I discuss) will not be used in any written reports, presentations, or publications. While real names will not be used, it may be possible that people who are close to me may be able to identify me because of unique aspects of my situation. I agree to have the interview(s) between me and the researcher audio taped and transcribed. Once transcribed, the audio tapes will be erased. Transcripts of my interview will be kept in a locked cabinet in a locked office accessible only by the researcher. If I become tired, or do not wish to continue I may end the interview at any time. I can withdraw my participation from the study at any time without penalty by contacting the Denise Brothers via phone or email (see below for contact information).

I am giving my consent to participate freely, and with full understanding.

Name: ______Signature: ______Date: ______If you have questions about your rights as a research participant in this study, you may contact Miami University’s Office of Research and Scholarship at 513-529-3734. If you have questions about this research project or wish to contact the researcher call or email Denise Brothers at 513-255-2221 or [email protected].

106