Rose, S. M., & Hospital, M. M. (2018). Women's love and friendship. In C. B. Travis and J. W. White (Eds.), (pp. 117-131). APA Handbook of the Psychology of women, Vol. 2: Perspectives on women's private and public lives. American Psychological Association, Wash., D. C. Rose and Hospital women enabled White women to work outside the the importance of self-love, and the potential of home, and yet still be considered respectable, thus sisterhood as a catalyst for social change. Accord­ creating a new generation of single young people ing to feminists of the first wave era (1800-1950s), socializing on more equal terms (Coontz, 2005). As authentic, freely chosen love is not possible between the influence of the extended family declined, the women and men within patriarchy. Equality is nec­ nuclear family gained primacy. essary for love to flourish; it must be given freely Marriage, particularly among the White middle and must be reciprocated as ardently. Therefore, class, began to be seen as a private agreement within the gender inequalities enforced within patri­ between a man and woman with an emphasis on archy,love and marriage are regarded as being anti­ companionship and love ( Cherlin, 2004; Coontz, thetical to each other. 2005). Subsequently, a doctrine of separate spheres First wave feminists regarded romantic love to for women and men began to arise, defining men as be an ideology that worked to subordinate women. the breadwinners and women as the homemakers. Wollstonecraft (1792/2013) expressed contempt for Women were expected to be sexually pure and were the way women are taught to exist solely for love. to be protected from the male social spheres of eco­ In 1857, Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote to Susan B. nomics and politics (Coontz, 2005). Married women Anthony, became singularly responsible for childcare and the It is in vain to look for the elevation of household. Combined with inequities in pay as well woman so long as she is degraded in as labor laws that were passed under the guise of marriage ... the laws and religion of protecting women, it was difficult for most White our country ... make woman the mere women to continue to work after marriage (Goldin, tool of man. He has made the laws .... A 1991). man in marrying gives up no right; but a For Black women and men during the American woman, every right, even the most sacred slave era (1619-1865),love also was separated from of all-the right to her own person .. . marriage, but for a different reason. White slave our present false marriage relation .. . in owners denied Black women and men the right to most cases is nothing more nor less than marry (Omolade, 1994). The tradition of the single legalized prostitution. (C. Jones, 1997, Black mother, which originally arose in response to pp. 87-88) slave owners' separation of families, continued in the postslavery era, when many Black women defied Emma Goldman (1914, as cited in Schneir, 1994) gender restrictions by living alone (Omolade, 1994). concurred that love and marriage were antagonistic The discourse among Black women abolitionists and to each other because marriage subordinates women suffragists of the 1800s did not focus specifically on (see Volume 1, Chapter 1, this handbook). love or marriage. The ideology of separate spheres The feminist ideal was for women to attain love's did not apply to Black women who were forced to liberating potential, while rejecting its oppressive perform physical and sexual labor, as Sojourner and patriarchal effects. Wollstonecraft declared Truth (1851) famously argued in her "Ain't I a love to be "the most evanescent of all passions" Woman?" speech, advocating for human rights for (Schneir, 179211994, p. 10), Likewise, Emma Gold­ all women and all Black people. man (1914, as cited in Schneir, 1994) described love as "the strongest and deepest element in all life; the Love and the First Wave of Feminism harbinger of hope, of joy, of ecstasy . .. the defier of (1800-1950s) all laws, of all conventions ... [and] the freest, the One of the earliest feminist critiques of women's most powerful moulder of human destiny" (p. 323). love and friendship was Mary Wollstonecraft's Feminists also embraced self-love as being impor­ Vindication of the Rtghts of Women, published in tant to the ability to fully love another. Women 1792. Thereafter, four major themes emerged con­ must be aroused to have a sense of personal dignity cerning the nature oflove, the value of friendship, and independence (Cady Stanton, 1857, as cited in

118 Women's Love and Friendship

C. jones, 1997). Friendships often provided a sense roles of wife, mother, and homemaker. Radical femi­ of dignity to women in this century; women's pas­ nists such as Firestone (1970) described love as the sionate romantic friendships were a widely accepted "pivot of oppression for women" (p. 112)-a holo­ social institution and played a central emotional role caust, a hell, or a sacrifice. Rich (1980) identified in women's lives apart from marriage and family "compulsory heterosexuality" as a political insti­ (Faderman, 1981). tution that disempowered women. The emerging The women's suffrage movements in England Black, Latina, and Asian feminist movements chal­ and the United States, coupled with the Victorian lenged gender and racial inequality (Garcia, 1997), emphasis on romantic love, ultimately led to the but did not specifically address love. The oppressive undermining of the separate spheres doctrine. This nature of (heterosexual) love for women was attrib­ was also due, in part, to a large upsurge among uted to patriarchy, the set of social relations among women in high school enrollment and graduation men that, supported by a material base, establishes between 1910 and 1930 (Goldin, 2006). Further­ or creates interdependence and solidarity among men more, the first Great Migration of Blacks to the enabling them to dominate women (Hartmann, 1981). north from 1910 to 1930 opened more jobs and edu­ Second wave feminism encouraged, and was cational opportunities for Black women (Wilkerson, accompanied by a revolutionary shift in, women's 2011). Black families often migrated together, and involvement in the labor force in the 1970s (Goldin, wives were expected to continue to coJ;J.tribute to 2006). Work began to reflect an aspect of women's the family income, at least temporarily (M. E. jones, identity, and they began to play a greater role in the 1980). By the time women had achieved the right to decision making with their husbands about the type vote in the United States in 1920, marriage rates had and nature of their work. Marriages became more increased. However, a shift away from companionate individualized (Cancian, 1987); expectations for mar­ marriage toward individualistic marriage had prolif­ riage began to include (a) self-development, or the idea erated and divorce rates doubled (Coontz, 2005). that each person should develop an independent self In the 1930s, a greater emphasis on sexual grati­ instead of merely sacrificing oneself to one's partner; fication in marriage also began to transform the role (b) the expectation that roles within marriage should · of married women. Laws restricting birth control be flexible and negotiable; and (c) that communication were relaxed. The emotional and sexual satisfaction and openness in confronting problems were essential. of husbands became an important criterion for mari­ The most extensive treatise on women's friend­ tal success. Wives' roles shifted from subjugation ship during this era was by Raymond (1986), who and obedience to sexual partner, thus reinforcing described hetero-reality as a system that confines the male-defined standards of beauty for women. women's affection to serving men, whereas men's However, through the 1950s, wives and husbands affection is directed to man-to-man rapport, on tended to base their gratification on fulfilling their which men's destiny depends. Raymond does not prescribed gendered marital roles well: being good pretend that all women can be friends, but argues providers, good homemakers, and responsible par­ that all women have the potential to form vital ents (Cherlin, 2004). friendships with other women. The importance of self-love was explored as well. Black feminists The Second Wave of Feminism endorsed the idea that self-love was critical to the (1950s-1990) ability to transcend oppression (e.g., james Myers, Feminist critiques of love resurfaced beginning in 1986). Raymond (1986) identi.fied self-love that is the 1950s, and continued during the second wave of "intercourse with oneself," as critical to the idea of feminism. Love was described as being oppressive, a thinking and of friendship: "thinking is where I keep curse that confines women in the feminine universe myself company, where I find my original friend, (Beauvoir, 1949/2011). Friedan (1963/2013) identi­ if you will .. . until the Self is another friend, it is fied the "problem with no name" as White, middle­ often difficult for women to have confidence in their class women's dissatisfaction with the constricting power of making and sustaining friends" (p. 222).

119 Rose and Hospital

Feminist consciousness-raising groups in the Contemporary Feminism ( 1990-Present) 1970s served to strengthen and redefine women's Recent trends suggest that the contemporary view friendships. The concept of "sisterhood" encouraged of romantic love has progressed somewhat toward women to develop friendships that provided sup­ a feminist ideal of love as a freely chosen and equal port and intimacy and enhanced a sense of personal relationship. Although marriage appears to be power (Strommen, 1977). Radicalesbians (1976) symbolically important to many people, its practi­ argued that these changes were more likely to occur cal importance has declined (Cherlin, 2004). The within lesbian friendship because of lesbians' greater notion that romantic love can fulfill all of a person's women-identification. Frye (1983) contended that a needs also may be declining, thereby increasing the community of women which recognizes and autho­ importance of friendships (Yalom & Brown, 2015). rizes women's initiatives is critical for women to Contemporary feminist theory (1990-present) has initiate creative acts of courage, imagination, and continued to deepen analyses about equality as a memory. Black feminists and Black lesbian femi­ necessary precondition for love, the importance of nists presented a contrasting view as they began to women's friendships and self-love, and the potential articulate the ways that Black women are positioned for and limitations of civic friendship or sisterhood within structures of power in fundamentally differ­ as a catalyst for social change. ent ways from White women, challenging the idea The significance of equality as a precondition of feminist sisterhood as being viable across race and for love undergirds the new interdisciplinary field sexual orientation (Crenshaw, 1989; Lorde, 1984). of feminist love studies Q6nasd6ttir & Ferguson, By the 1990s, marriage gradually was becoming 2014). Love studies scholars contend that asym­ a choice rather than a necessity, particularly among metries between women and men even today are middle-class adults in the United States. The "pure legitimized by gendered patterns of love and care relationship" had become the norm for the individu­ that define heterosexual relations and marriage alized marriage: an intimate partnership that one (Gunnarsson, 2014;j6nasd6ttir & Ferguson, 2014). enters for its own sake, and which lasts only as long Their central premise is that love hooks women into as both partners are satisfied with the intimacy and dependent relationships with men through an unfa­ love that they get from it (Giddens, 1991). vorable contract, marriage, with women ultimately Models of this type of relationship of choice being responsible for the care of children (Smart, became more visible as the life experiences of same­ 2007). Feminist love studies theorists argue that it is sex couples began to be documented. For example, critical to study how, under patriarchal conditions Peplau, Padesky, and Hamilton (1982) established of inequality, love is subverted at the intrapsychic that among a sample of lesbian couples, greater satis­ or microlevel to provide men with a greater capac­ faction was associated with equality of involvement ity than women to determine how they are loved by and equality of power in the relationship. Kurdek others. For instance, in gendered caring, the woman and Schmitt (1986) began a series of studies compar­ recognizes and affirms in practice the man's needs ing cohabitating, heterosexual and lesbian and gay and goals as valuable in their own right and as not couples that generally showed few differences among directed by her needs and goals. In heterosexual couple types. For instance, Kurdek and Schmitt found relations, then, women tend to adapt more to men that the groups did not differ in psychological adjust­ than men adapt to women (Gunnarsson, 2014). ment. For each type of couple, love for the partner Furthermore, heteronormative inequalities even was related to many barriers to leaving the relation­ affect same-sex relations. The legalization of same­ ship. Schneider (1986) compared lesbian couples and sex marriage squeezes lesbian and gay relations cohabiting heterosexual couples on three dimensions, into traditional notions of what loving relationships including durability, interdependence, and equality. "should" look like (i.e., heterosexual marriage; Lesbian relationships were somewhat less durable and Schneebaum, 2014). interdependent but more equal. This research began Can love, then, ever be a liberating force accord­ to destigmatize lesbian and gay relationships. ing to feminists today? At present, some feminist

120 Women's Love and Friendship love theorists argue that love can be a site of resis­ regarded friendship love as a goal that is necessary tance or transformation, enabling women to rescript to nurture and sustain collective female well-being. their lives and to act as agents of social change More recently, Pate (2014) in an online news site, (Langhamer, 2013). They noted that gender equality The Feminist Wire, expressed the importance of self­ has increased partly because of the current domi­ love for Black women: nance of romantic love as the driver of personal Living in a society that constantly relationships 06nasd6ttir &: Ferguson, 2014). Those marginalizes you [as a Black woman], who had been denied the right to love or marry invalidates your experiences and emo­ historically (e.g., Black couples, interracial couples, tions, and fosters insecurity ... we are LGBT couples) often also view love as transforma­ taught to hate ourselves .... To love tive. For instance, hooks (2002) embraced the trans­ yourself-amidst this daily onslaught of formative possibilities of love and its relationship to disparaging messages is not only political self-love: but also radical. ... Love turned inward To seek love as a quest for the true self conjures a reservoir where you can tap liberates. All females who dare to follow into your own power and manifest the our hearts to find such love are entering a highest expression of yourself. cultural revolution that restores our soul The feminist view of women's friendship as being and allows us to see clearly the value and socially transformative, however, has been included meaning of love in our lives. (p. xix) as part of the contemporary dialogue to some extent. Weeks, Heaphy, and Donovan (2001) highlighted For example, Wilkinson (2014) viewed friendship the benefits and complexities of lesbians and gay between women as a critical aspect of solidarity that men engaging in relationships and families of can be a force for social change or a model for civic choice. They speculated that the growing trend of citizenship. Love studies theorist Ferguson (2014) these nontraditional partnerships would have an contended that a feminist love politics needs to impact on societal views of marriage as a whole by oppose the overemphasis on romantic love among providing "new relational possibilities" that were couples as the Western ideal for a good life. much more egalitarian. Advocates of same-sex mar­ The critical importance of intersectionality to riage have argued that the right to marry is based discussions of a feminist sisterhood also is a major on the right to love; furthermore, the legalization of consideration within contemporary feminist theory. same-sex marriage may result in more public aware­ Intersectionality is a term introduced by Crenshaw ness of the possibility of gender equality within (1989) to explain that the experience of being a romantic relationships (Lakoff, 2002). Black woman cannot be understood in terms of In terms of women's friendships, friendship being black or of being a woman, but requires an within feminist scholarship today is referred to pri­ analysis of the intertwined nature of these identi­ marily within the context of feminist or political ties. Therefore, an intersectional or inclusive femi­ solidarity, but typically is not described as being a nism must be developed such that feminist politics love relationship (e.g., Wilkinson, 2014). Friend­ assumes that sexist oppression cannot be overcome ship love is not imbued with the passion that was without also overcoming racist, ethnic, religious, used to describe it in earlier eras. Love is regarded and heterosexist oppression (Ferguson, 2014; see as pertaining almost exclusively to romantic love also Volume 1, Chapters 27-30, this handbook, for within sexual relationships. This hierarchy of loves more on intersectionality). prevents people from imagining new ways of loving. In summary, feminist theories provide an ana­ A feminist goal should be to destabilize the distinc­ lytic strategy that emphasizes the importance of tion between love and friendship (Wilkinson, 2014). equality as the basis for love and friendship. The his­ Similarly, self-love is seldom addressed by torically based feminist prototype or script for love feminists today except anecdotally. hooks (2002) represents what might be considered an ideal script

121 Rose and Hospital

for heterosexual relations that has not yet been stages of love. For example, Murstein (1988) identi­ achieved, as well as an actual or attainable prototype fied three stages: passionate, romantic, and conjugal for women's friendships. Furthermore, feminist (companionate) love. Passionate love is associated theory links love to self-love, as well as to feminist with intense arousal. Romantic love also is intense, friendships and sisterhood. We now tum to how but is more focused on the idealization of the other, psychology has approached these issues. not primarily the sexual aspects. Conjugal love is the least intense love and often occurs among couples after a long marriage when they know each other LOVE AND FRIENDSHIP WITHIN well, at which point liking and trust replaces passion PSYCHOLOGY (Murstein, 1988). Love, as approached and defined historically within These views provided many useful insights psychology, originally gave little attention to the about the function and structure of love, as well as feminist issues of gender, equality, or friendship. testable hypotheses. However, psychological and Love began to be studied by social scientists in the feminist perspectives on love seldom intersected. 1940s with an emphasis on typologies and measure­ Psychological theories defined or "scripted" love as ment (Hatfield, Bensman,&: Rapson, 2012). Love being heterosexual romantic/sexual love, a love that and marital relationships were examined primarily exists narrowly between a woman and a man that at the dyadic level. This microstructural approach was shaped at the interpersonal level without refer­ also progressed in a largely ahistorical manner; it ence to the social context. For example, Gershenfeld appeared to assume that the conventional family (1984), proposed that "there is no such thing as a lifecycle common in the 1940s to 1960s-being 'typical' or 'traditional' marriage. Every marriage is single to getting married to having children- was unique. Every couple can, with the necessary under­ still normative in the 1980s, although major devia­ standings and skills, choose, design, and create a tions from this path already had occurred, includ­ marriage uniquely their own" (p. 54). This individu­ ing increases in single parenthood, cohabitation, alistic approach assumes that successful relation­ divorce, and the visibility of lesbian and gay rela­ ships can be achieved by teaching couples specific tionships (Cherlin, 2004). skills (e.g., communication, problem-solving, fight­ In The Psychology of Love, one of the first major ing, loving; Gershenfeld, 1984). Issues pertaining to books defining the "science of love," Sternberg gender and power are absent from this approach. and Barnes (1988) drew on global theories of love Psychological theories also routinely imply that proposed by (mostly male) psychologists, includ­ heterosexual romantic love is superior to friend­ ing Zick Rubin, Bernard Murstein, john Alan Lee, ship love in two ways: first, by omitting nonsexual, Phillip Shaver, David Buss, George Levinger, and nonparental, and same-sex relations from theories Stanton Peele. Many of these theorists identified of love and attachment; and second, by implicidy taxonomies of love. One of the most widely refer­ regarding heterosexual relations on the basis of enced is Lee's (1977) six love styles: eros (physical romantic/sexual ties as being stronger or implicitly attraction), storge (loving affection), ludus (a playful, superior to ones on the basis of friendship love. noncommitted type of love), mania (an intensively The first point is illustrated by Zeifman and Hazan's preoccupied love), pragma (a practical love), and (1997) process model of normative adult attachment agape (a selfless, altruistic love). formation. Building on Bowlby's theory of attach­ Other psychological views of love included a ment, they posit that the caregiver-infant bond is focus on limerance, an obsessive and emotional the prototypical attachment bond that forms the dependence on another person (Tennov, 1979); love basis for adult attachment. The prototypical adult as an attachment process (Shaver, Hazan,&: Brad­ attachment subsequendy is formed with an opposite­ shaw, 1988); or love as a product of biological and sex peer (Zeifman &: Hazan, 1997). Although evolutionary forces that drive reproduction (Buss, attachment bonds are not essential for the survival 1988). Psychologists also attempted to describe the of the individual procreative partners, Zeifman

122 Women's Love and Friendship and Hazan argued that without the pair-bond, an love appeared to be important within psychology infant/child with only the mother as a parent will in earlier eras. Theorists, such as Maslow (1968), face greater risk of survival. This conventional regarded self-love as a critical aspect of one's ability (heteronormative) narrative overlooks reasonable to love. Maslow described self-actualized individuals alternative arguments: that infant-mother bonds as being able to express being-love, which is evi­ would be a prototype for strong mother-daughter and denced by a deep acceptance of themselves, others, female-female bonds, or that female-female bonds might and the world. Wright (1978) also explored the rela­ contribute to the survival of offspring (Hrdy, 2009). tionship between friendship and self-development. The valuing of romantic love over friendship More recently, self-love within psychology is love in heterosexual relations was exemplified by defined quite differently. For instance, Campbell the segregation of love and friendship in theory and and Baumeister (2001) conceptualized self-love as research. Rubin (1973), in his early study of love, focusing on two constructs, self-esteem and narcis­ presented love and friendship as being diametrically sism. They concluded that there is little evidence opposed. The lesser valuation of companionate that high self-esteem or high narcissism promotes love in heterosexual relations also is reflected in loving others; however, self-acceptance does predict research concerned with the durability of romantic liking for and positive interactions with a spouse. love in long term relationships. Acevedo and Aron A few others also have explored narcissism and self­ (2009) asked if the intensity, engagement, and esteem as representing self-love (e.g., Peterson&: sexual interest of romantic love inevitably dies out DeHart, 2014). or "at best turn[s] into companionate love-a warm, less intense love, devoid of attraction and sexual THE PSYCHOLOGY OF WOMEN desire" (p. 59). Friendship as a significant adult relationship Love and friendship began to be approached in began to be studied parallel to research on love ways that were more integrative of feminist and psy­ (Duck. 1980; Winstead &: Derlega, 1986; Wright, chological theories with the rise of research on the 1969). These findings provide insight into women's psychology of women. Hatfield, Walster, and Ber­ friendships but do not place friendship within the scheid (1978) were among the first to develop the context of love research or address its potential role idea of equity or fairness as being important within in social change movements. Early work defined personal relationships such as marriage. This and friendship as platonic and thereby limited what ques­ other social exchange theories normally measured tions were asked. Sexual or romantic partners were how equitable a relationship is by determining, for excluded in friendship studies, although an allow­ example, if each person in a couple believes she or ance was made that friendship could exist between he is underbenefitted, equally benefitted, or over­ spouses (Winstead&: Derlega, 1986). Contrary to benefited in the relationship (Hatfield & Rapson, long-held views, research on gender and friendship 2012). Berscheid and Hatfield (1978) also proposed quickly established that women's friendships were that there are two types of love: passionate love, "a not inferior to men's (Wright, 1982). There now state of intense longing for union with another," and exists a large body of research on gender differences companionate love, "the affection we feel for those in friendship. For example, Hall's (2011) meta­ with whom our lives are deeply intertwined" (p. 9). analysis of37 manuscripts indicated that women had Hatfield (1988) speculated that the difference somewhat higher friendship expectations for sym­ between the two is one of emphasis. Passionate love metrical reciprocity (e.g., loyalty, genuineness), com­ involves intense feelings and sexual attraction. Com­ munion (e.g., self-disclosure), and solidarity (e.g., panionate love involves mutual respect, trust, and mutual activities), but that men had higher expecta­ affection, similar to love in friendship. tions for agency (e.g., physical fitness, status). Feminist psychologists also identified issues of The concept of self-love that is important within power and gender roles as being central to under­ feminist thought as being related to one's ability to standing love and commitment in describing the

123 Rose and Hospital

"emerging science of close relationships" (Ber­ sympathetic to women (Cherniss, 1972). They also scheid & Peplau, 1983). Gilligan (1984), in rec­ had more intergenerational friendships, received ognizing structural influences on love, noted that more emotional support for their work from friends, "heterosexual relationships are beset by problems more often had friends as part of their chosen "kin­ of transference and social structures of dominance ship" system, and came to regard spending time and subordination" (p. 28). By defining the two with other women as valuable in itself (Seiden & moral voices of justice and care, her theory reso­ Bart, 1975). Rose and Roades's (1987) study of nates with those of feminists such as Wollstonecraft heterosexual nonfeminists and heterosexual and (179212013) andj6nasd6ttir and Ferguson (2014). lesbian feminists found little difference in the qual­ A large body of psychology of women research now ity of same-sex friendship. However, the major- exists that explores gender, status, and power in ity of heterosexual and lesbian feminists credited relationships. friendship with women as enabling them to safely The second-class status of friendship in psycho­ share formerly private and personal experiences, logical research, particularly women's friendship, increasing the value they placed on friendship and also was challenged by feminist and lesbian psychol­ increasing their self-respect and personal growth, ogists. O'Connor's (1992) important review showed and as being intertwined with their political activ­ that women's friendships play an important role in ism. Research on lesbians also indicates that there is creating and maintaining their social worlds and the a link between friendship and community involve­ moral discourses within them. Weinstock and Roth­ ment (e.g., Rose & Hospital, 2014). blum's (1996) book on lesbian friendships marked Psychological theories appear to reflect an a departure from a traditional research focusing implicit ideological stance that continues to rein­ on causes and consequences of lesbianism to give force an individualist and heteronormative view of greater attention to the strengths of lesbian commu­ love and friendship. Friendship research also has nities such as friendships. In discussing the politics been conducted assuming a platonic relationship of lesbian friendship, Kitzinger (1996) further noted script and represents a separate body of knowledge that the language used often serves to trivialize or from research on love. Feminist psychologists have dismiss friendship; for example, if a sexual partner been challenging these limitations by studying is a "significant other," does that mean that a friend undervalued relationships (e.g., friendships, lesbian is an "insignificant other?" The profile of women's relationships) and the impact of intersectional iden­ friendships was raised nationally by the attention tities on love, friendship, and community. given to S. E. Taylor et al.'s (2000) research show­ ing that women's preference to tend-and-befriend (RE)INFUSING FEMINIST THEORY INTO in response to stressful situations was a vital ingre­ FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS dient of human social life. Although Taylor et al. attributed women's tend-and-befriend response to Psychology as a discipline has been focused primar­ biological instinct, it could be explained by gen- ily on measuring and analyzing "what is" and is der differences in social power as well. Diamond's concerned with formulating predictive statements (2008) research documenting passionate friendships about what most likely "will occur." Additionally, between young adult women provided further proof psychological research is still mostly individualistic of the importance of women's friendships, as well as and heteronormative Oackson, 2014; Rose, 2000; for the independence of love and desire. Werking, 1997). Research questions even within The relationship between friendship and femi­ the domain of the psychology of women have been nism, or friendship as a potential force for social confined to fairly narrow and distinct aspects of love change, has not been part of the feminist psychol­ and friendship. ogy research agenda. A few early studies com­ Our review of feminist theory points to some pared the friendships of feminist and nonfeminist concerns that might now be (re)infused within women. Feminists reported feeling closer and more research on the psychology of women. New insights

12+ Women's Love and Friendship might be gained by more specifically exploring the of the husbands in the study were classified as low relationship between love and equality, using con­ to moderate in their attunement toward their wives' cepts such as compassionate love to include mea­ needs. In those families, the husband's job was sures of romantic and friendship love in research on highly valued and the mother's work was not. Men's relationships, studying how romantic relationships typical responses to wives' requests for household and friendships might facilitate or impede each help or appreciation ranged from statements such as other, and renewing an interest in the role of self­ "Constant nagging ... shut the hell up" (p. 156) to love in loving another. Research on the obstacles to "I guess there's time when she needs emotional sup­ women's friendships, particularly across identities port and I don't ... pick it up ... just a guy quality 1 of race, sexuality, and social class, would provide guess" (p. 158). insights concerning the socially transformative As noted by Knudson-Martin and Mahoney potential of women's relationships with other (2009), the hidden power of gender ideology may women. suppress conflict about gender inequalities by creat­ ing resignation or fear of disturbing the relationship. Love and Equality Of the l2 heterosexual couples they interviewed, A great deal of feminist psychological research has none was completely successful at achieving equal­ focused on equallty and equity in relationships in ity. Five mechanisms that allowed couples to avoid terms of their effect on satisfaction or the division gender dilemmas included labeling a situation that of labor, but less so on the relationship between could be described as unequal as something more equality and love. Chapter 6 of this volume provides positive ("It doesn't bother me to do the cleaning"); an excellent review of the current research related not examining the consequences of choices ("My to how couples negotiate interpersonal power, and business is here, so we live here"); settling for less the effect it has on relationship satisfaction. How­ ("A lot of the time he will clean the bathroom"); ever, there still remains a need to focus on equal- hiding the issues ("When difficult issues come up, ity and love specifically. A recent example of work one person will say something funny"); and placing addressing love and equality as related concepts was the responsibility on the wife ("I need to be more conducted by Stanik, McHale, and Crouter (2013) available to him"). in their examination of the gender dynamics and marital love among African American couples. Tra­ Compassionate Love ditionality in husbands' gender attitudes was linked The theory and model of compassionate love might to lower levels of love and also declined over time, serve to bridge research between romantic and whereas those African American couples with egali­ friendship love. Within psychology, compassionate tarian attitudes and division of labor showed higher love recently has been proposed as perhaps being and more stable levels of love. the most fundamental type of love. Compassionate Variables other than the division of labor love is defined as "an attitude toward the other ... might also yield insight into equality and love. For containing feelings, cognitions, and behaviors that instance, research on attunement (i.e., understand­ are focused on caring, concern, tenderness and an ing and responding to the partner's needs and inter­ orientation toward supporting, helping, and under­ est; Siegel, 2007) suggests that gender socialization standing the other, particularly when the other is and gendered power differentials play a strong role perceived to be suffering or in need" (Fehr & in undermining equality in caring. Love studies Sprecher, 2013). feminists contend that women tend to see situations Compassionate love includes two elements from the man's perspective, whereas men tend to that also are part of the feminist concept of love; it take their own perspective as a neutral point of view requires free choice (the giver deliberately decides to from which the woman's standpoint is judged (Gun­ extend this type of love) and a valuing of the other narsson, 2014). Matta (2009) found support for at a fundamental level. The concept of compassion­ this idea among U.S. couples, in which a majority ate love regards friendship and romantic love as

125 Rose and Hospital

compatible. For instance, Grote and Frieze (1994) a low level of interference, but does not improve explored friendship-based love among young adults marital quality if the husband has a high level of and married middle-age adults. Friendship-based interference. Future research might address these love was found to be strong in the relationships of complex links between spousal and nonmarital close both age groups. Similarly, when Fehr (1994) asked ties using larger and more diverse samples to deter­ participants to rate a series of prototypes in terms of mine the extent to which women's friendships shore how well each represented their views of love, they up inequitable marriages or, conversely, serve to ranked friendship, maternal, sisterly, and parental empower women. love as being closer to their ideal. Romantic love was ranked lower. More recently, Fehr, Harasymchuk, The Role of Self-Love in Loving and Sprecher (2014) found that people's happiness Feminist theory suggests that self-love (or self­ in and commitment to a romantic relationship was acceptance), love, and friendships would benefit strongly linked to how much compassionate love from being studied in relation to other women, they experienced for their partner. not-as has been the case to date-almost entirely Friendship within romantic relationships also in a relationship with or in comparison with men. was found to be a strong positive predictor of the One of the most devastating effects of patriarchy quality of romantic relationships such as love, sex­ is to make women not lovable to themselves or ual gratification, and romantic commitment (Van­ other women, causing women to identify with derDrift, Wilson, & Agnew, 2013). Compassionate other women out of a shared pain and not out of love also has been linked to friendship satisfaction a shared strength (Raymond, 1986). To explore (Sprecher, Fehr, & Zimmerman, 2007). Therefore, Raymond's idea that "a woman's Self is her original mutuality of compassionate love in romantic and and most enduring friend" (p. 5) would require friendship relationships may be an important indica­ new approaches and models. hooks (2001) sug­ tor of equality of caring, an important component of gested that a healthy model would include female the feminist ideal of love. Furthermore, compassion­ agency and self-actualization rooted in the under­ ate love can be experienced within many types of standing that when we love ourselves well (not relationships, including those with the self, friends, in a selfish or narcissistic way), we are best able and even strangers, suggesting that this kind of love to love others. At present, these concerns appear may be a core or fundamental type of love (Fehr & to be nearly exclusively the domain of self-help Sprecher, 2013). This suggests that the theory of psychology. However, qualitative and clinical compassionate love may be applicable as well to approaches could be used to bring them into the feminist concerns with friendship, self-love, and research domain. love as a mobilizing force for political action and social change. Feminist Friendship, lntersectionality, and Sisterhood Interactions Between Love and Friend The socially transformative capability of love is Relationships deserving of further study. Love's capacity for elimi­ To date, friendship, marriage, and family relations nating injustice and fostering community has been typically have been examined in isolation from one emphasized by feminist and antiracist theorists another. Few studies have studied the intersec- (e.g., Guy-Sheftall, 2014;james, 2013). Likewise, tion of the beneficial and problematic components the potential of friendship as a social force is worthy of networks of close relationships. One exception of greater consideration. Hunt (1991) argued that is Proulx, Helms, Milardo, and Payne's (2009) for women, "friendship is the context within which research exploring the role of husbands' interference the political imperatives of mutuality and equality in women's friendships. Their findings indicated are best experienced" (p. 128). Lesbian psycholo­ that having a close friend may increase women's gists consistently have valued and explored women's marital satisfaction in cases where husbands' have friendships as a personal relationship and a political

126 Women's Love and Friendship act (e.g., Degges-White, 2012; Rothblum & Wein­ may be single for some or even many years in old stock, 2014). Positive psychologists have begun to age. These changes suggest that the major lines of explore intercultural and cross-identity friendships psychological research on love and friendship that that may have application for building social change began in the 1940s are less applicable today. Con­ communities (e.g., Gaines&: Ketay, 2013; Hojjat &: temporary research on the psychology of women :\~~oyer, 2016). Increasingly in academic writings, questioned earlier heteronormative precepts, result­ friendship has been invoked as a model that might ing in robust lines of research that explore many clarify issues related to communication, citizenship, features of love and friendship. Intersectionality as ethnic and cultural identity, and peace and conflict a concept and theory also has challenged dominant (Devere, 2013). views of friendship and sisterhood. However, an Friendship as a model for civic citizenship does unacknowledged patriarchal ideology continues have its limits, however, given that some friend­ to limit what relationships, dimensions of interac­ ships can be exclusionary and selfish rather than tion, contexts, and identities are studied. Although egalitarian and caring (Devere, 2013). Clearly, more feminist theory also is ideological, it is transparently research on friendship across differences is needed so. The advantage is that it offers a woman-centered to determine the usefulness of civic friendship as frame of reference as well as a vision as to what a strategy to attain a citizenship on the basis of "can be." As suggested in this chapter, an infusion mutual respect, trust, and reciprocity. Recent efforts of feminist theory and ideals can provide insight to explore friendship across differences of race/ into the limitations of the traditional discourse so ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identities, and as to disrupt the status quo and direct us to new cultures have taken a step in this direction (e.g., areas of inquiry with the ultimate goal of gaining a Demir, 2015; Galupo et al., 2014; Rose&: Hospital, deeper, more integrated understanding of love and 2016). lntersectionality theory and research plays friendship. an important role here as well. Intersectionality requires that researchers consider the role of power References and the social context of the intersecting identities Acevedo, B. P., & Aron, A. (2009). Does a long-term of those studied, meaning that relationships and relationship kill romantic love? Review of Genera! outcomes may vary for individuals with different Psychology,13, 59-65. http://dx.doiorg110.1037/a0014226 identities (Warner, Settles,&: Shields, 2016). The Aristotle. (1994). The Nicomachean ethics (M. Ostwald, feminist movement of the future will require a bet­ Trans.). New York, NY: Bobbs-Merrill. (Original work published 1962) ter understanding of these different perspectives to succeed at building a social movement across differ­ Beauvoir, S. (2011). The second sex. New York, NY: Random House. (Original work published 1949) ences of race, ethnicity, social class, sexual orienta­ Berscheid, E., & Hatfield, E. (1978). Interpersonal tion, and gender identity. attraction (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Berscheid, E., & Peplau, L.A. (1983). The emerging CONCLUSION science of relationships. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen,]. H. Harvey, T. L. Huston, & Love, marriage, and friendship in the United States G. Levinger (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 1-19). New York, NY: Freeman. and Western nations today have moved closer to the feminist ideal, at least for middle-class women who Buss, D. M. (1988). Love acts: The evolutionary biology oflove.ln R.j. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The are free to choose whom to marry. Women are mar­ psychology of love (pp. 100-118). New Haven, CT: rying later, having fewer children, and working for Yale University Press. most of their lives. For the first time in the United Campbell, W. K., & Baumeister, R. F. (2001). Is loving the States, single women (including never married, wid­ self necessary for loving another? An examination owed, divorced, or separated women) outnumber of identity and intimacy. In G. J. Fletcher & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: married women (Traister, 2016). Longer life expec­ Interpersonal processes (pp. 437-456). Hoboken, tancies, especially for women, also suggest that they NJ: Wiley.

127 Rose and Hospital

Ferguson, A. (2014). Feminist love politics: Romance, Cancian F. M. (1987). Love in America: Gender and self· dev;lopment. New York, NY: Cambridge University care, and solidarity. In A. G. j6nasd6ttir &: A. Ferguson (Eds.), Love: A question for feminism in the 21st century Press. (pp. 250-264). New York, NY: Routledge. Cherlin, A.]. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. journal of Marriage and Family, Firestone, S. (1970). The dialectic of sex: The case for feminist revolution. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus&: 66,848-861. httpJ/dx.doLorgt10.111ll j.0022-2445.2004.00058.x Giroux. Friedan, B. (2013). The feminine mystique. New York, NY: Chemiss, C. (1972). Personality and ideology: A personological study of women's liberation. Psychiatry: Norton. (Original work published 1963) journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 35, Frye, M. (1983). The politics of reality: Essays in feminist 109-125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ theory. Trumansburg, NY: Crossing Press. 00332747.1972.11023706 Gaines, S. 0., &: Ketay, S. (2013). Positive psychology, Coontz, S. (2005). Marriage, a history: From obedience to culture, and personal relationship processes. In intimacy or how love conquered marriage. New York, M. Hojjat & D. Cramer (Eds.), Positive psychology of NY: Vilcing. love (pp. 218-232). http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection acprof:oso/9780199791064.003.0016 of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of Galupo, M.P., Bauerband, L.A., Gonzalez, K. A., Hagen, D. B., antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and Hether, S.D., & Krum, T. E. (2014). Transgender antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, friendship experiences: Benefits and barriers of 140, 139-167. friendships across gender identity and sexual Degges-White, S. (2012). Lesbian friendships: An orientation. Feminism and Psychology, 24, 193-215. exploration of lesbian social support networks. httpJ/dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959353514526218 Adultspan]oumal, 11, 16-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ Garcia, A. M. (1997). Chicano feminist thought: The basic j.2161~0029.2012.00002.x historical writings. New York, NY: Routledge. Demir, M. (Ed.). (2015). Friendship and happiness: Across Gershenfeld, M. K. (1984). Developing relationship the life-span and cultures. httpJ/dx.doi.org/10.1007/ skills. In V. Rogers (Ed.), Adult development through 978-94-017-9603-3 relationships (pp. 53-69). New York, NY: Praeger. Devere, H. (2013). Amity update: The academic debate Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and on friendship and politics.joumal of Friendship society in the late modern age. Stanford, CA: Stanford Studies, 1, 5-33. University Press. Diamond, L. M. (2008). Sexual fluidity: Understanding Gilligan, C. (1984). Marital dialogues. In V. Rogers (Ed.), women's love and desire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Adult development through relationships (pp. 28-39). University Press. New York, NY: Praeger. Duck, S. W. (1980). Personal relationships research Goldin, C. (1991). The role of World War II in the rise in the 1980s: Towards an understanding of of women's employment. American Economic Review, complex human sociality. Western journal of Speech 81,741-756. Communication, 44, 114-119. httpJ/dx.doi.orgl Goldin, C. (2006). The quiet revolution that transformed 10.1080/10570318009373996 women's employment, education, and family. American Faderman, L. (1981). Surpassing the love of men. New York, Economic Review, 96, 1-21. httpJ/dx.doi.org/10.1257/ NY: Morrow. 000282806777212350 Fehr, B. (1994). Prototype-based assessment of Grote, N. K., &: Frieze, I. H. (1994). The measurement laypeople's views of love. Personal Relationships, 1, of friendship-based love in intimate relationships. 309-331. httpJ/dx.doi.org/10.11111 Personal Relationships, I, 275-300. http://dx.doi.orgl j.1475-6811.1994.tb00068.x 10.1111/j.14 75-6811.1994.tb00066.x Fehr, B., Harasymchuk, C., & Sprecher, S. (2014). Gunnarsson, L. (2014). Loving him for who he is: The Compassionate love in romantic relationships: A microsociology of power. In A. G. ]6nasd6ttir & review and some new findings. journal of Social and A. Ferguson (Eds.), Love: A question for feminism in t.he Personal Relationships, 31,575-600. httpJ/dx.doi.orgl 21st century (pp. 97- 112). New York, NY: Routledge. 10.1177/0265407514533768 Guy-Sheftall, B. (2014). Love note to Toni. Feminist Wire. Fehr, B.,&: Sprecher, S. (2013). Compassionate love: What Retrieved from http://www.thefeministwire.com/ we know so far. In M. Hojjat &: D. Cramer (Eds.), 2014/11/not-all-speed-is-movement Positive psychology of love (pp. 106-120). httpJ/ dx.doi.org/10 .1 093/acprof:oso/ Hall,]. A. (2011). Sex differences in friendship 9780199791064.003.0008 expectations: A meta-analysis. journal of Social and

128 Women's Love and Friendship

Personal Relationships, 28, 723-747. http://dx.doi.org/ Kitzinger, C. (1996). Toward a politics oflesbian 10.1177/0265407510386192 friendship. In). S. Weinstock&: E. D. Rothblum (Eds.), Lesbian friendships (pp. 295-300). New York: Hartmann, H. I. (1981). The family as the locus of New York University Press. gender, class, and political struggle: The example of housework. Signs: journal of Women in Culture and Knudson-Martin, C.,&: Mahoney, A. R. (2009). The myth Society, 6, 366-394. http:/ldx.doi.org/10.1086/ of equality. In C. Knudson-Martin & A. R. Mahoney 493813 (Eds.), Couples, gender, and power: Creating change Hatfield, E. (1988). Passionate and compassionate in intimate relationships (pp. 43-61). New York, NY: love. In R.]. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The Springer. psychology of love (pp. 191-217). New Haven, CT: Kurdek, L.A., & Schmitt,]. P. (1986). Relationship Yale University Press. quality of partners in heterosexual married, Hatfield, E., Bensman, L., &: Rapson, R. L. (2012). A heterosexual cohabiting, and gay and lesbian brief history of social scientists' attempts to measure relationships. Journal of Personality and Social passionate love. journal of Social and Personal Psychology, 51,711-720. http:l/dx.doi.org/10.1037/ Relationships, 29, 143-164. http://dx.doi.org/ 0022-3514.51.4.711 10.1177/0265407511431055 Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral politics: How liberals and Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (2012). Where do we stand conservatives think. http://dx.doi.org/10. 7208/ and where do we need to go? In K. Tomblom &: chicago/9780226471006.001.0001 A. Kazemi (Eds.), Handbook of social resource theory Langhamer, C. (2013). The English in love: The intimate (pp. 435-451). http:l/dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614- story of an emotional revolution. Oxford, England: 4175-5_28 Oxford University Press. Hatfield, E., Walster, G. W., &: Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Lee,]. A. (1977). A typology of styles ofloving. Titeory and research. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 173-182. Hojjat, M., &: Moyer, A. (Eds.). (2016). The psychology of http:l/dx.doi.org/10.1177/014616727700300204 friendship. http:l/dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/ Lorde, A. (1984). Age, race, class, and sex: Women 9780190222024.001.0001 redefining difference. In A. Lourde's (Ed.), Sister/ hooks, b. (2001). Salvation: Black people and love. New York, Outsider: Essays and Speeches (pp. 114-123). NY: Morrow. Trumansburg, NY: The Crossing Press. hooks, b. (2002). Communion: The female search for love. Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology ofbeing. New York, NY: Morrow. New York, NY: Van Nostrand. Hrdy, S. B. (2009). Mothers and others. Cambridge, MA: Matta, D. S. (2009). Fathering: Disengaged or responsive? Harvard University Press. In C. Knudson-Martin&: A. R. Mahoney (Eds.), Hunt, M. E. (1991). Fierce tenderness: A feminist theology Couples, gender, and power (pp. 149-170). New York, offriendship. New York, NY: Crossroad. NY: Springer. Jackson, S. (2014). Love, social change, and everyday Murstein, B. (1988). A taxonomy oflove.In R.J. Sternberg&: heterosexuality. In A. G. J6nasd6ttir &: A. Ferguson M. L. Barnes (Eels.), The psychology of love (pp. 13-37). (Eds.), Love: A question for feminism in the 21st century New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. (pp. 33-47). New York, NY: Routledge. O'Connor, P. (1992). Friendships between women: A james,]. (2013). Seeking the beloved community. Albany: critical review. New York, NY: Guilford Press. State University of New York Press. Omolade, B. (1994). The rising song of African-American james Myers, L. (1986). A therapeutic model for women. New York, NY: Routledge. transcending oppression: A Black feminist perspective. Pate, S. (20 14). The radical politics of self-love and self­ Women and Therapy, 5(4), 39-49. http://dx.doi.org/ care. Feminist Wire. Retrieved from http://www. 10.1300/]0 15V05N04_06 thefeministwire.com/20 14/04/self-love-and~self-care J6nasd6ttir, A. G.,&: Ferguson, A. (Eds.). (2014). Love: Peplau, L.A., Padesky, C. , & Hamilton, M. (1982). A question for feminism in the 21st century. New York, Satisfaction in lesbian relationships. journal of NY: Routledge. Homosexuality, 8(2), 23-35. http://dx.doi.org/ jones, C. (Ed.). (1997). The love offriends: An anthology of 10.1300/j082v08n02_04 gay and lesbian letters to friends and lovers. New York, Peterson,]. L., &: DeHart, T. (2014). In defense of self­ NY: Simon&: Schuster. love: An observational study on narcissists' negative Jones, M. E. (1980). Black migration in the United States behavior during romantic relationship conflict. Self with emphasis on selected central cities. New York, NY: and Identity, 13,477-490. http:l/dx.doi.org/10.1080/ Century Twenty One. 15298868.2013.868368

129 Rose and Hospital

Proulx, C. M., Helms, H. M., Milardo, R. M., &: Payne, C. C. Old family/New family (pp. 189-228). New York, NY: (2009). Relational support from friends and D. Van Nostrand. wives' family relationships: The role of husbands' Shaver, P. R., Hazan, C., & Bradshaw, D. (1988). The interference. journal of Social and Personal integration of three behavioral systems. In R. J. Relationships, 26, 195-210. http://dx.doi.org/ Sternberg&: M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of 10.1177/0265407509106709 love (pp. 68-99). New Haven, CT: Yale University Radicalesbians. (1976). The woman identified woman. Press. InS. Cox (Ed.), Female psychology: The emerging self Siegel, D.]. (2007). The mindful brain: Reflection and (pp. 304-308). Palo Alto, CA: Science Research attw1ement in the cultivation of well-being. New York, Associates. NY: Norton. Raymond,]. G. (1986). A passion for friends: Toward a Smart, C. (2007). Personal life. Cambridge, England: Polity. philosophy offemale affection. London, England: Sprecher, S., Fehr, B.,&: Zimmerman, C. (2007). Women's Press. Expectation for mood enhancement as a result of Rich, A. (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian helping: The effects of gender and compassionate existence. Signs: journal ofWomen in Culture and love. Sex Roles, 56, 543-549. http://dx.doi.org/ Sodety, 5, 631-660. hnp://dx.doi.org/10.1086/ 10.1007/s11199-007-9192-6 493756 Stanik, C. E., McHale, S.M.,&: Crouter, A. C. (2013). Rose, S. (2000). Heterosexism and the study of women's Gender dynamics predict changes in marital love romantic and friend relationships. journal of Social among African American couples. Journal of Marriage Issues, 56, 315-328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ and Family, 75, 795-807. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ 0022-4537.00168 jomf.l2037 Rose, S., &: Roades, L. (1987). Feminism and women's Sternberg, R. ]., & Barnes, M. L. (1988). The psychology of friendships. Psychology ofWomen Quarterly, 11, love. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 243-254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1llllj.1471- Strommen, E. A. (1977). Friendship. In E. Donelson&: 6402.1987.tb00787.x ]. E. Gullahorn (Eds.), Women: A psychological Rose, S. M., &: Hospital, M. M. (20 14). Lesbians over 60: perspective (pp. 154-167). New York, NY: Wiley. Newer every day. In V. Muhlbauer,]. Chrisler, & Taylor, S. E., Klein, L. C., Lewis, B. P., Gruenewald, T. L., L. F. Denmark (Eds.), Women and aging: An Gurung, R. A., & Updegraff,]. A. (2000). international, intersectional power perspective Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend­ (pp. 117-146). New York, NY: Springer. and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychological Rose, S. M., & Hospital, M. M. (2016). Friendships Review, 107,411-429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ across race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. In 0033-295X.107.3.411 M. Hojjat & A. Moyer (Eds.), The psychology of Taylor, W. R., &: Lasch, C. (1963). Two "kindred spirits": friendship (pp. 75-92). http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ Sorority and family in New England, 1839-1846. acprof:oso/9780190222024.003.0005 New England Quarterly, 36, 23. http://dx.doi.org/ Rothblum, E. D.,&: Weinstock,]. (2014). Lesbian 10.2307/363388 ex-lovers: The really long-term relationships. New Tennov, D. (1979). Love and limerence. New York, NY: York, NY: Routledge. Stein & Day. Rubin, Z. (1973). Liking and loving: An invitation to Traister, R. (2016). All the single ladies: Unmarried women social psychology. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart&: and the rise of an independent nation. New York, NY: Winston. Simon & Schuster. Schneebaum, A. (2014). All in the family: Patriarchy, Truth, S. (1851). Ain't I a woman? Retrieved from https:// capitalism, and love. In A. G.j6nasd6ttir & www.nwhm.org/education-resources/biography/ A. Ferguson (Eds.), Love: A question for feminism biographies/sojourner-truth in the 21st century (pp. 127-14:0). New York, NY: Routledge. VanderDrift, L. E., Wilson,]. E.,&: Agnew, C. R. (2013). On the benefits of valuing being friends Schneider, M.S. (1986). The relationships of cohabiting for nonmarital romantic partners.]ournal of Social lesbian and heterosexual couples: A comparison. and Personal Relationships, 30, 115-131. http:// Psychology of Women Quarterly, 10, 234-239. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407512453009 dx.doi.orgll0.1111/j.1471-6402.1986.tb00749.x Warner, L. R., Settles, I. H., & Shields, S. A. (2016). Schneir, M. (1994). Feminism: The essential historical Invited reflection: Intersectionality as an writings. New York, NY: Random House. epistemological challenge to psychology. Psychology Seiden, A.M.,&: Bart, P. (1975). Woman to woman: of Women Quarterly, 40, 171-176. http://dx.doi.org/ Is sisterhood powerful? InN. Glazer-Malbin (Ed.), 10.1177/0361684316641384

130 Weeks,]., Heaphy, B.,&: Donovan, C. (2001). Same sex Wollstonecraft, M. (2013). A vindication of the rights intimacies: Families of choice and other life experiments. of woman. New York, NY: Dover. (Original work http:l/d.x.doi.org/10.4324/9780203167168 published 1792) Weinstock,]. S., &: Rothblum, E. D. (1996). Lesbian Wright, P. H. (1969). A model and a technique for friendships. New York: New York University Press. studies of friendship. journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 295-309. http://dx.doi.org/ Werking, K.]. (1997). Cross-sex friendship research as 10.1016/0022-1031(69)90055-9 ideological practice. InS. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and Wright, P. H. (1978). Toward a theory of friendship based interventions (pp. 391-410). New York, NY: Wiley. on a conception of self. Human Communication Research, 4, 196-207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ Wilkerson, I. (2011). The warmth of other suns: The epic j.1468-2958.1978.tb00609.x story ofAmerican's great migration. New York, NY: Vintage. Wright, P. H. (1982). Men's friendships, women's friendships and the alleged inferiority of the latter. Wilkinson, E. (2014). Love in the multitude? A feminist 1-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ critique of love as a political concept. In A. G. Sex Roles, 8, BF00287670 j6nasd6ttir &: A. Ferguson (Eds.), Love: A question for feminism in the 21st century (pp. 237-249). New Yalom, M., &t Brown, T. D. (2015). The social sex: York, NY: Routledge. A history offemale friendship. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Winstead, B. A.,&: Derlega, V.J. (1986). Friendship and social interaction: An introduction. In B. A. Zeifman, D.,&: Hazan, C. (1997). A process model Winstead &tV.]. Derlega (Eels.), Friendship and of adult attachment formation. InS. Duck (Ed.), social interaction (pp. 1-7). http://dx.doi.org/ The handbook of personal relationships (Vol. 2, 10.1007/978-1-4612-4880-4_1 pp. 179-198). New York, NY: Wiley.

131