See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/240282337

Mars and Venus Collide: A Discursive Analysis of Marital

Self-Help Psychology

Article in Feminism & Psychology · February 2004

DOI: 10.1177/0959353504040305

CITATIONS READS

40 8,177

1 author:

Mary Crawford
University of Connecticut
119 PUBLICATIONS 5,618 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mary Crawford on 14 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Feminism & Psychology
http://fap.sagepub.com

Mars and Venus Collide: A Discursive Analysis of Marital Self-Help

Psychology
Mary Crawford
Feminism Psychology 2004; 14; 63
DOI: 10.1177/0959353504040305

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://fap.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/1/63

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Feminism & Psychology can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://fap.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://fap.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations (this article cites 9 articles hosted on the

SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):
http://fap.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/14/1/63

Downloaded from http://fap.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 11, 2008

© 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
02_FAP14/1 articles 12/2/03 11:05 AM Page 63

ARTICLES

Mary CRAWFORD

Mars and Venus Collide: A Discursive Analysis of

Marital Self-Help Psychology

Relationship self-help advice often blames women for relationship difficulties and
endorses relatively traditional gender roles. Its appeal to female consumers is thus some-
what puzzling. This paper uses critical feminist discourse analysis to explore two ‘Men are
from Mars, Women are from Venus’ relationship self-help texts. Both these texts construct
gender as a set of natural dichotomies, claim that women and men are fundamentally
different in relationship needs, and hold women responsible for maintaining relationship
harmony. Thus, they reproduce a discourse that historically has been oppressive to
women. However, like all texts, these afford multiple readings. I argue that their rhetoric
may be deployed to voice dissatisfaction with inequality and to encourage change in a
partner’s behavior. By affording openings for marital negotiation, these self-help texts and
others like them may undermine the ideology of fixed gender differences in relationship
orientation and may serve to hold both partners accountable for maintaining marital
satisfaction.

Key Words: feminism, heterosexual relationships, marriage, popular psychology, power,

self-help genre

Thirty years of social science research have shown that men have more power in
heterosexual marriage. This imbalance may be attributed to many factors, includ-
ing men’s greater access to external resources such as income, their higher social
status, and lingering patriarchal social norms (for reviews see Crawford and
Unger, 2004; Steil, 1997). Though most research on marital power has used
samples from the United States, men’s control of material resources and their
relatively higher status and power in heterosexual marriage are worldwide
phenomena (United Nations, 1991).
Because equality has not yet been achieved, marriage may be less satisfying for
women than for men. Most studies of marital satisfaction show a decrease over

Feminism & Psychology © 2004 SAGE (London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi)
Vol. 14(1): 63–79; 0959-3535
DOI: 10.1177/0959-353504040305

Downloaded from http://fap.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 11, 2008

© 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
02_FAP14/1 articles 12/2/03 11:05 AM Page 64

64 Feminism & Psychology 14(1)

time (e.g. Steinberg and Silverberg, 1987), and this decrease may be greater
for women. In a large-scale study of US heterosexual women assessed during
pregnancy and after the birth of their first child, decreased marital satisfaction
was related not only to their increased workload but also to violations of their
expectations of equality. The more they had expected equality in childcare and
housework, the more dissatisfied they were (Ruble et al., 1988). In a qualitative
study of British couples, all the wives interviewed expressed concerns about
marital inequality (Dryden, 1999). Many studies done over a 30-year period have
linked chronic gender inequality in marriage with depression and other psycho-
logical disorders in women (Steil, 1997; Ussher, 1991).
The publishing industry has addressed issues of dissatisfaction in long-term
heterosexual relationships by producing relationship self-help texts aimed at
female consumers. Judith Worell (1988) analyzed the depiction of women in
relationship self-help books of the 1980s and found that women were portrayed
as both ignorant (confused, not knowing what they want) and incompetent (lack-
ing the skills and techniques to create fulfilling relationships). She noted that self-
help books do depict valid relationship issues that many women experience.
However, they then blame the woman for allowing herself to get into the con-
flictual situation or for not knowing the techniques for resolving it. These books
embrace what Crawford and Marecek (1989) termed the ‘woman-as-problem’
framework, in which women’s problems in living are seen as psychological
deficits that can be remedied through individual change.
The woman-as-problem framework relies on a belief in deep-seated and
enduring sex differences in personality, social skills, motivation, and goals. For
example, a common claim is that women and men constitute two separate
cultures with opposing conversational goals and motives. These differences are
said to be learned in the sex-segregated playgroups of middle childhood, where
boys focus on competition and girls on cooperation (Maltz and Borker, 1982).
This ‘two-cultures’ model has informed several best sellers, such as those by
linguist Deborah Tannen (e.g. You Just Don’t Understand, 1990). It also under-
lies the most successful of all self-help relationship texts, those by pop psy-
chologist John Gray: Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus (1992);
Mars and Venus in the Bedroom (1995); and nine related titles. These self-help
manuals portray women and men’s personalities and relationship goals as funda-
mentally different and claim that these differences are inherent, inevitable, and
healthy. Their discourse of gender differences renders gendered power into
puzzling little ‘“peculiarities” that we need to work around’ (Dryden, 1999: 11).
And despite their emphasis on the fixed and inevitable nature of difference, they
prescribe numerous linguistic and behavioral changes, most of them directed at
women. Thus, these texts embody a self-contradictory ideology: behavioral
differences between heterosexual women and men are biological and natural, yet
couples need instruction in how to enact and manage them (Potts, 1998).
Moreover, women, more than men, are advised to change themselves in order to
be more natural.

Downloaded from http://fap.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 11, 2008

© 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
02_FAP14/1 articles 12/2/03 11:05 AM Page 65

CRAWFORD: Mars and Venus Collide 65

The content of relationship self-help books is often misogynistic (Worell,

1988). Even when they do not blame women for all relationship difficulties, they
teach that women and men inhabit (and should properly continue to inhabit)
separate spheres, with women being responsible for relationship maintenance and
men entitled to more autonomy. Thus, their overt message to women is one of
intractable sex differences and their covert message one of accommodation and
subordination.
It is not obvious why women would invest in a separate-spheres ideology that
seems to reinforce and justify an unequal division of labor and a privileging of
masculinist perspectives. Are the women who read these books mere victims of
indoctrination? Admittedly, heterosexual marriage has traditionally been con-
sidered a relatively unchanging institution with prescriptive roles, bolstered by
larger legal and social structures. However, social changes within the past several
decades, influenced by the second wave of the women’s movement, have been
largely in the direction of increasing sexual and social equality for women. These
changes include the increased proportion of married women in the paid work
force, the decreasing gender wage gap, less societal tolerance of violence against
women, social acceptance of a continuing high divorce rate, an increase in
cohabitation without legal ties, more control by individuals over reproductive
decision making, and the movement for gay and lesbian civil rights including the
right to marry. In response to these larger social and political changes, marriage
has become a ‘complex series of interactions that have to be constantly negotiated
and worked through’ (Giddens, 1993: 8).
Even a cursory reading of self-help media shows that many of these works
are superficial, lacking in research support, and prone to exaggerated claims of
effectiveness. One best-seller, The Rules, promises women that they will catch a
husband and have a happy marriage by abandoning their independence and
recognizing that men are biologically programmed to take control (Boynton,
2003). Similarly, The Surrendered Wife instructs women that their marriages will
be positively transformed if they never again disagree with their spouse, volun-
teer an opinion, or refuse sex (Crawford, 2001). Men Are From Mars, Women Are
From Venus opens with the claim that ‘literally thousands’ of people who read
the author’s books or attended his workshops have seen their relationships
‘dramatically transform overnight’ (Gray, 1992: 3). From a feminist perspective,
self-help materials like these may do more harm than good, functioning to
(re)produce antiquated gender roles and to buttress the institution of patriarchal
marriage (Boynton, 2003; Potts, 1998).
Why do these texts continue to appeal to women readers? Women’s problem-
atic relationship with self-help media is a growing area of study. Feminist
scholars and cultural critics are exploring why particular themes arise in self-help
literature at particular moments in time (Faludi, 1991), how self-help books
distort social science research (Anderson and Accomando, 2002), how women
are positioned as in need of self-improvement projects (Worell, 1988), and how
relationship advice narratives serve social functions (Bisshop, 2001; Radway,

Downloaded from http://fap.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 11, 2008

© 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
02_FAP14/1 articles 12/2/03 11:05 AM Page 66

66 Feminism & Psychology 14(1)

1984; Simonds, 1992). In a feminist poststructuralist critique of Gray’s Mars and

Venus in the Bedroom: A Guide to Lasting Romance and Passion, Annie Potts
(1998) demonstrated recurring themes in the text: the privileging of male sexual-
ity over female sexuality; the construction of an active, expert male sexuality and
a submissive, acquiescent female sexuality; and the construction of a ‘need’ to
define and complete the self through heterosexual intercourse. This article com-
plements and extends such approaches to the content and function of self-help
psychology by analyzing two texts for not only patriarchy-enhancing, but also
patriarchy-subverting, readings.

THE ANALYTIC APPROACH

The approach used in this paper is critical feminist discourse analysis. Because
discourse analysis (DA) examines ‘the content and organization of discourse and
what it is used to do in particular interpretive contexts’, feminists have been able
to use it to ‘explore a range of questions concerning the reproduction of gender
power relations’ (Gill, 1995: 167, emphasis in original). Feminist DA differs
from some other variants of DA in that the principled commitment of feminism
to social and political change is acknowledged in the research process.
All DA is concerned with how forms of language work. However, critical DA
does more than analyze formal features of language or the immediate inter-
personal function of utterances. It attempts to link discourse with power and
ideology, showing how specific forms of language lend themselves to particular
political and ideological interests (Parker, 1997). As part of this critical impetus,
discourse analytic researchers have studied how psychology itself produces dis-
courses about the mind, the self, identity, optimal adjustment, the ‘good life’, and
so on. Psychological discourses and practices, and their links with the wider
culture, have proved fruitful topics for DA (Burman et al., 1996; Parker, 1997;
Walsh-Bowers, 1999). This disciplinary critique is a form of feminist reflexivity
(Wilkinson, 1988).
In this paper, I report a critical feminist discourse analysis of two psychologi-
cal self-help texts that promise to explain and improve heterosexual gender rela-
tions: Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus (Gray, 1992) and a 1997
ABC News television program, Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus,
But We Have to Live on Earth. The analysis demonstrates how these texts repro-
duce dominant discourses that are oppressive to women. In addition, the analysis
draws on the Foucauldean notion that within repressive discourses are the seeds
of counter-discourses that can subvert the dominant views (Foucault, 1977).
I propose that the texts afford ways for their users to challenge the dominant
discourse and begin to articulate counter-discourses that facilitate marital negoti-
ation. At least some of the appeal of these self-help materials may be that they
afford opportunities for women (and men) to examine the balance of power in
heterosexual relationships.

Downloaded from http://fap.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 11, 2008

© 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
02_FAP14/1 articles 12/2/03 11:05 AM Page 67

CRAWFORD: Mars and Venus Collide 67

METHOD

The Texts and Their Contexts

Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, first published in 1992, remained
on the New York Times best seller list for 222 weeks, selling six million copies
in five years within the United States. The author, John Gray, has been a frequent
guest on the Oprah Winfrey Show, which has a global audience, and the book
continues to be a worldwide best seller, translated into at least 42 languages
(Bruning, 1998; Gleick, 1997). Its 10 sequels account for another four million
sales (Marano, 1997). The author of all these works represents himself as an
expert in close relationships, although his credentials are lacking1 (Marano,
1997).
In addition to the books, Gray has produced or authorized Mars/Venus audio-
tapes and videotapes, greeting cards, calendars, a CD-ROM, package holidays, a
CD of Mars/Venus pop songs, a syndicated advice column, and Celebrity Line
cruises. Gray has also developed a counseling franchise for mental health pro-
fessionals, in which therapists pay training fees, licensing fees, and royalties for
the right to advertise themselves as Mars and Venus Counselors (Gleick, 1997;
Marano, 1997).
The two texts analyzed in this study are the original (1992) Men are from
Mars, Women are from Venus (hereafter, M/V), which formed the foundation of
Gray’s media empire, and a derivative of the books, an ABC News special hosted
by Barbra Walters, titled Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus, But We
Have to Live on Earth (hereafter, M/V-TV). This production first appeared in a
prime-time Sunday evening slot (Anderson, 1998). In it, six heterosexual married
couples are followed as they discuss issues in their relationships, attend a semi-
nar with John Gray, and participate in group follow-ups after one month and five
months.
Even more than M/V and its sequels, M/V-TV is a highly mediated product. It
has conversations between partners in heterosexual marriages, which were pre-
sumably spontaneous, occurring in their homes, but under the gaze of a television
production crew. The segments used in the finished product presumably were
selected from hundreds of hours of videotape to structure a coherent narrative for
viewers, not necessarily to reflect the couples’ own constructions. There are
limitations such as lack of ethnic and cultural diversity (five of the six couples are
white, and all are middle class.) The text also reflects North American indi-
vidualism (the couples are presented in isolation from family, friends, and co-
workers) and heterosexism (the possibility of relationships between two
‘Martians’ or ‘Venusians’ is not considered).

Downloaded from http://fap.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 11, 2008

© 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
02_FAP14/1 articles 12/2/03 11:05 AM Page 68

68 Feminism & Psychology 14(1)

Procedure
A transcript2 of M/V-TV was purchased from the ABC television network and
checked for accuracy against a video recording of the broadcast. Working with
the written text (M/V) and both the transcript and video (M/V-TV), analysis
proceeded by identifying rhetorical strategies and key episodes in each. Key
episodes were defined as those in which a dominant discourse was voiced, and
those in which there was some disruption or challenge to the dominant discourse.
The latter kind of episode was taken to represent an emerging counter-discourse
– a site of resistance to, or subversion of, the dominant discourse.
Much of the meaning of conversation is conveyed in non-verbal and para-
linguistic features such as intonation, pauses, and emphasis. In M/V-TV, these
aspects of meaning were indicated by annotating key episodes3. Annotation con-
ventions are shown in the Appendix.

RESULTS

In M/V, the dominant discourse is represented both by constructing the reader as

female and by constructing gender as a set of natural and healthy dichotomies.
Although M/V makes prescriptions for both sexes, it leaves little doubt about
intended readership, explicitly stating that men are interested in ‘news, weather
and sports and couldn’t care less about romance novels and self-help books’
(Gray, 1992: 16). As Potts (1998) points out, the ideological and rhetorical
functioning of the text may be understood in light of the audience to which it is
directed: middle-class women in unsatisfying heterosexual relationships. This
female audience is addressed directly in sections of the book that have no paral-
lels aimed at the male reader: ‘Programming a Man to Say Yes’, ‘The Art of
Empowering a Man’, and ‘How to Give Up Trying to Change a Man.’

Reproducing the Discourse of Difference

An important rhetorical strategy is that M/V is not overtly anti-feminist. Indeed,
the second wave of the women’s movement is entirely absent from M/V; it is a
non-event. Readers are not encouraged to blame either sex for gender troubles,
but neither are they encouraged to consider social structural factors that affect
gender relations. Instead, women and men are constructed as individuals sepa-
rated from any social context, and heterosexual relations are de-politicized (Potts,
1998). This passage from the first few pages of M/V accomplishes such a move:

Though important advances have been made (in understanding male-female

differences), many books are one-sided and unfortunately reinforce mistrust
and resentment toward the opposite sex. One sex is generally viewed as being
victimized by the other. A definitive guide was needed for understanding how
healthy men and women are different. (Gray, 1992: 4, emphasis in original)

Downloaded from http://fap.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 11, 2008

© 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
02_FAP14/1 articles 12/2/03 11:05 AM Page 69

CRAWFORD: Mars and Venus Collide 69

Here, the text distances itself from overt anti-feminism while at the same time
suggesting that those who talk of power and oppression with respect to gender are
misguided. Difference is naturalized and deemed ‘healthy’, making it difficult to
dispute or reject claims about its extent or even to see them as mere claims.
Moreover, the ‘one-sided’ (i.e. feminist) books that cause problems of mistrust,
resentment, and unwarranted claims of victimization are contrasted with books
about ‘healthy’ people, in an implicit contrast between feminists and mentally
healthy people.
In M/V, gender is constructed as a set of polar opposites. This is most clearly
demonstrated in its version of a foundational myth:

Centuries before the Martians and Venusians got together they had been quite
happy living in their separate worlds. Then one day everything changed. The
Martians and Venusians on their respective planets suddenly became depressed
. . . When the Martians became depressed, everyone on the planet left the cities
and went to their caves for a long time. They were stuck and couldn’t come out,
until one day when a Martian happened to glimpse the beautiful Venusians
through his telescope . . . the sight of these beautiful beings inspired the Martians
. . . Suddenly they felt needed. They came out of their caves and began building
a fleet of spaceships to fly to Venus. When the Venusians became depressed, to
feel better they formed circles and began talking with one another about their
problems. But this didn’t seem to relieve the depression. They stayed depressed
for a long time until through their intuition they experienced a vision. Strong and
wondrous beings (the Martians) would be coming across the universe to love,
serve, and support them. Suddenly they felt cherished . . . they happily began
preparing for the arrival of the Martians . . .
Men are motivated and empowered when they feel needed . . . women are
motivated and empowered when they feel cherished. (Gray, 1992: 42–43,
emphasis in original)

Virtually every aspect of personality, motivation, and language is polarized in

M/V. Women’s speech is characterized as indirect, men’s as direct. Women are
said to respond to stress by becoming overwhelmed and emotionally involved,
men by becoming focused and withdrawn. Women and men even lunch in
restaurants for different reasons: for men, it is an efficient way to approach the
task of eating; for women, it is an opportunity to build a relationship. The text
repeatedly characterizes men and women as ‘opposite sexes’, describes gender-
differentiated behavior as ‘instinctive’, and reproduces symbolic gender polari-
ties: Martians are hard, Venusians soft; Martians are angular, Venusians round;
Martians are cool, Venusians warm. ‘In a magical and perfect way their differ-
ences seemed to complement each other’ (Gray, 1992: 44).
M/V omits discussion of how women and men could come to be so different.
Instead, it relies on familiar gender stereotypes about social roles to buttress the
ideology that difference is normal and natural. In M/V, middle-class heterosexual
families follow gender scripts that are at odds with contemporary family patterns.
Martians come home after a long day at the office to waiting Venusians. Martians
are obsessed with careers and money, Venusians with home and feelings.

Downloaded from http://fap.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 11, 2008

© 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
02_FAP14/1 articles 12/2/03 11:05 AM Page 70

70 Feminism & Psychology 14(1)

Venusians seem to do almost all the domestic work, from taking children to the
dentist to cooking, cleaning, and calling elderly relatives. Martians may be asked
to help, but only if Venusians use carefully circumscribed request forms and
recognize that Martians have every right to refuse. Women and men are charac-
terized as so irredeemably and fundamentally different that they need translators
to help them with even the most mundane communication.
A subtext of M/V is that women require a relationship with a man to survive
and thrive, and they can earn a man’s love only through acceptance of the
gender-role status quo. While women presumably buy the book in order to learn
how to change themselves, their partners, and their relationships, the change
implicitly endorsed is to stop trying to change. Individual change is described
as largely impossible, and the restructuring of gender relations toward a more
egalitarian norm is not presented as an option. The promise of stasis is made
overt: ‘Through understanding the hidden differences of the opposite (sic) sex we
can . . . give and receive . . . love. Love is magical, and it can last, if we remem-
ber our differences’ (Gray, 1992: 14).
Like M/V, M/V-TV overtly reproduces the discourse of difference. Further, it
uses the words of the couples who participate to instruct the viewers on how to
explain their own problems. For example, Gray repeatedly deploys the metaphor
of men retreating to their ‘caves’, telling women that they must recognize men’s
entitlement not to become involved in domestic life until and unless they are
ready. In this segment from the beginning of the program, Gray stands with
microphone in hand next to a set designed to resemble a family room or den, with
a TV, newspapers scattered on the floor, and a comfortable-looking recliner. He
lectures the couples, who are seated on a stage:

JG: See, whenever a Martian has stress, on MARS, we go to our cave. This is our cave.
This is our territory.
((Sits in Recliner))
Nobody can tell me what to do. The problem is, women don’t understand it’s
healthy and normal for men to do this, and this is what they need to do. Then you
PUNISH them for going to the cave.
((Stands. Using exaggerated gestures, points to the family room set))
Let him have his space. Don’t take it personally. And if you don’t go in, he’ll
come out. He gets lonely in there.

The couples are later shown deploying this same rhetoric. For example, in
these two segments from near the end of the program, one woman (SF) and two
men (BF and PM) express relief and resignation at the discovery that all men are
alike and their behavior is non-negotiable because they are ‘Martians’.

SF: Before this seminar (.) I’m mad at Bob (.) because of the things that Bob does,
because he’s Bob. (.) Then you realize (.) that Bob isn’t doing these things
because he’s Bob. He’s doing these things because he’s a MA:Rtian?( . . . ) .hhh
BF: A man=
SF: =How can you be mad at a man for being a man?

Downloaded from http://fap.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 11, 2008

© 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
02_FAP14/1 articles 12/2/03 11:05 AM Page 71

CRAWFORD: Mars and Venus Collide 71

BF: It’s funny that John Gray does call it the Martians and the Venusians. We are that
different. It’s like we are from different planets.
PM: It’s (.) not politically correct really nowadays to think that men and women are
different. (.) That does a complete disservice I think (.) to what (.) is truly the case.
(.) They are different. (.) And once you come to that conclusion boy it doesn’t
seem like it’s (.) maybe a problem after all you just kinda(.) move around it.

In this segment, two women (DT and MM) deploy their own metaphor, that of
ending a marriage by ‘throwing him back in the pool’, but then revert to the cave
metaphor as they decide that there is little hope of more fulfilling future relation-
ships:

DT: (Because) the scary thing is what this teaches us .h is that even if you decide (.)
.h) that he’s NOT gonna meet your expectations .h and you throw um back into
the, in (.) [you know=]
MM: [the pool]
DT: =the pool the next one you’re gonna get is gonna have his cave and is gonna treat
you exactly the same.

To summarize thus far, both M/V and the derivative M/V-TV appear to present
a seamless discourse of essential difference. The construction of the reader and of
gender in these self-help texts functions to reproduce and naturalize the dominant
discourse, one that is oppressive to women. Their popularity appears to be a case
of what Michelle Fine and Susan Gordon (1989: 165) called the ‘social con-
struction of quiescence’ – social injustice being enforced with no evidence of
unhappiness or rebellion on the part of the disadvantaged group. Indeed, it seems
that women themselves seek out the texts of their subordination.

Challenging the Dominant Discourse: Mars and Venus Collide

All attempts at social control run the risk of affording resistance. The meaning of
any text is not unitary or controlled; rather, multiple readings from multiple
standpoints are possible, and some of these readings may subvert the dominant
discourse. To what extent do the texts under analysis here afford such challenges?
M/V seems to offer very little in the way of openings for the resistant reader.
(Although they are beyond the scope of this paper, there clearly is a need for
reader-response studies that might reveal otherwise.) In contrast, M/V-TV depicts
participants making their own interpretations of the ideology of difference,
questioning its tenets and disputing its fairness.
Some of these critical responses apparently were provoked when the rhetoric
of M/V-TV made particular issues salient. As described earlier, the metaphorical
cave that men (and only men) may inhabit was invoked to excuse men from
engagement in domestic life. The following comments about men’s entitlement
to withdrawal took place among a group of women at the one-month follow-up
discussion, after one of the husbands urged them to ‘accept the fact’ that men
need their caves:

Downloaded from http://fap.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 11, 2008

© 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
02_FAP14/1 articles 12/2/03 11:05 AM Page 72

72 Feminism & Psychology 14(1)

MM: You know (.) all this is asking women once again (.) to take the high road (.) And
that bothers me (.) Now I have to suppress (.) I have to sacrifice (.) Got to keep
it in (..) And when he’s ready, I have to be ready too.
.
.
SC: But that-that’s what marriage IS. I mean =
DT: =But it still seems rude to me (.) I don’t get a cave.
.
.
SC: He wants to be in his cave ((gestures with hand on table)) and not be bothered
by you (.) and you’re not doing that.
DT: Whether it’s turning on the TV or running away ((on the part of the husband))
(.) we can use this ((the M/V ideology)) so we can deal with it so I don’t get so
RESENTFUL. But the reality I (.) I still think it’s WRONG ((gestures with hand
on table)), and it’s not very nice.

In this exchange, DT notes that the ideology of difference provides men with a
‘cave’ that she is not granted. SC accepts this, defending the husband’s right not
to be bothered by his wife. This provokes DT to articulate the subversive view
that one function of the M/V ideology is pacifying women into accepting male
entitlement without resentment, and to protest that this is unfair.
The M/V-TV text offers other examples of resistant readings. For example,
Gray insists that all women want is romance. If a woman feels ‘cherished’, she
will have no need to interrogate gender relationships any further. However, in this
segment from the one-month follow-up, a male participant (AC) defends his
romantic record only to have his spouse (SC) challenge his account:

AC: Do I practice saying ‘I love you’)(.) I’ve said it (.) at least twice. (..) I’m I’m baby-
steppin’ my way to that? I think I’ve improved.
SC: I remember one time I don’t remember the second time.
AC: I remember twice because I’m counting.

Contradicted by her husband’s insistent ‘I remember twice because I’m count-

ing’, SC immediately switches topics, enlisting Gray’s dictum that men should
bring their wives flowers. Although her criticism is based on Gray’s definition of
what it means to ‘cherish’ a wife, SC insists on defining for herself exactly what
would constitute satisfactory evidence of cherishing, and holding her husband
accountable. Along with expressing a ‘need to be cherished’, SC displays her
entitlement to monitor and criticize her spouse’s behavior:

SC: He still hasn’t brought home flowers

AC: I’m working on (.) uh (..) getting flowers. (.)
SC: What are you GROWing um?
((Laughter))

Four months later, at the second follow-up session, her entitlement and his fail-
ings are still issues of contention:

Downloaded from http://fap.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 11, 2008

© 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
02_FAP14/1 articles 12/2/03 11:05 AM Page 73

CRAWFORD: Mars and Venus Collide 73

AC: Did I bring you flowers?

SC: No (.) flowers. ((Laughing))
AC: We had flowers on the table I didn’t bring you flowers?
SC: What flowers? My birthday came by no flowers. My anniversary came by no
flowers. (.) NO FLOWERS.
AC: I remember I bought you flowers. (.) No, because a few times I-=
SC: =The answer is no.=
AC: =No.

SC’s resistance is limited. Although her articulation and pursuit of her ‘need’ to
be brought flowers is spirited and protracted, it remains embedded in the M/V
discourse because the ‘need’ is trivial and conventionally feminine. However, in
the following segment, a different woman (FP) goes beyond flowers to dispute
her husband’s self-serving accounts of the division of domestic labor – a far more
radical challenge that is never suggested within the M/V discourse. The husband
(MP) opens their dialogue by asserting that he does half of the housework and
childcare. The husband is seated in a recliner, the wife sits on the floor in front of
him surrounded by children’s toys, and their toddler plays on the floor nearby.
MP: I would say it’s done 50/50. ((Leans back in recliner.))
FP: ( . . . ) (Heh) and I won’t agree with that, though I’ll say it’s 75 percent me and 25
percent him. ((Taking care of child on the floor.))
MP: (Whew) .hhh Sorry to hear that, Fran. (..) You really feel that, huh?=
FP: =.hh Yes, I do. Who takes Matthew to the babysitter in the morning
MP: You do that but that’s-
FP: Who picks Matthew up
MP: You do that but why?=
FP: =Who takes care of Matthew when he’s sick, (..) most of the time=
MP: =Both of us-=
FP: =Most of the time.=
MP: =Both of us.=
FP: =Who takes care of Matthew when he’s sick, Mike,
[most of the time.]
MP: [Both of us.]
FP: Who buys Matthew his diapers
MP: Tell me I’ve never boughten diapers for Matthew.=
FP: =When=
MP: =Huh? [Tell me I’ve never boughten diapers for Matthew.]
FP: [When was the last time? When was the last time?]
MP: When was the last time I did?=
FP: =Think very cl- carefully.=
MP: =Um, probably about four weeks ago, I’ll be honest with ya. But I’ve done it.=
FP: =Not four weeks ago.

In this segment, FP implicitly rejects Gray’s teaching that women will be satis-
fied if they are ‘cherished’ by displays of romantic attachment. Instead, she
expresses her dissatisfaction in an entirely different area, the division of labor in
their household. In her case, the M/V workshop seems to have provided a wel-
come opportunity to challenge her partner about child care and housework issues
and to hold him responsible for his actions. Her partner, MP, perhaps constrained

Downloaded from http://fap.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 11, 2008

© 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
02_FAP14/1 articles 12/2/03 11:05 AM Page 74

74 Feminism & Psychology 14(1)

by Gray’s exhortations that men should express empathy for women’s naturally
overemotional behavior, seems unable to mount a defense against her account of
his failings.
Because M/V-TV gives voice to both partners in each couple, it allows us to
consider some possible effects of the M/V ideology on men. While the men, like
the women, often echo the ideology of intractable difference, some of the male
participants also are shown articulating the recognition that they may need to
learn relationship skills, and that their failure to pay attention to their marriages
may be costly. The man in the following segment (PM) has positioned himself as
a quick and eager learner throughout the program. In this segment, he advises the
other husbands how to work at listening to their wives speak, unnatural though
that may be:

PM: There’s about five things you have to remember to do when you’re listening. First,
you have (.) to l-learn to keep your mouth shut (.) or say (.) you know (.) sup-
portive things like ‘uh-huh, yeah, you’re right, I know, yeah, that’s true.’ .hhh
And then you’ve gotta keep eye contact, you’ve also gotta remember not to say(.)
you know (.) ‘Well this is what you should do.’ [And not to watch TV=]
YB: [=That’s right.=]
PM: =or read a book.=
YB: =That’s right.=
PM: =Or look off into space. Those are a lot of things to remember, ya know. And
that’s just one thing, listening. After a while, I guess it gets easier. But (.) at first,
(..) you know (..) it’s not as easy as it=
H: =It’s real hard (.) because you’ve never done it before.=
PM: =Right, yeah=
H: =That’s why.=
PM: =You’re using muscles that you haven’t exercised in a while.
((Laughter))

A little later, with the assent of the other husbands in the discussion group, PM
acknowledges that his wife, too, has power to effect changes in their marriage,
changes he might not like:

PM: Anyways I see it like you’ve just started a new job, and you’re going to be eval-
uated as you go along. =
H: =Absolutely.=
PM: =You want to do well (.) and you got to really focus on it. =
H: Yup.
PM: This is a serious thing. You can get fired.

In these episodes, husbands voice the recognition that they do not have unilateral
decision-making power. Their advice to each other on how to listen to one’s
wife and how to present convincing evidence of interest in her talk by saying
‘supportive things’ and keeping eye contact could be read as instruction in how
to ‘do listening’ in ways that will preserve their privilege. But it also suggests that
there is a relative balance of power in their marital relationships and that they
recognize they could lose a woman they value. PM’s analogy to the workplace –

Downloaded from http://fap.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 11, 2008

© 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
02_FAP14/1 articles 12/2/03 11:05 AM Page 75

CRAWFORD: Mars and Venus Collide 75

‘You can get fired’ – shows that he views his responsibility to do a fair share
of relationship work as ‘a serious thing’. In likening his marriage to a job – an
analogy that is not disputed by the other men present – he not only grants his wife
the status of a boss or supervisor, he also implies that he is subject to legitimate
performance standards.

DISCUSSION

M/V texts play a role in justifying and preserving the existing social order. One
(retrograde) function of such relationship self-help literature may be to support
prescriptive gender roles while mystifying the power imbalances they reflect and
perpetuate. Caroline Dryden (1999: 150) notes that ‘postfeminist’ women are
uncomfortable with discussions about power and oppression, particularly in the
context of heterosexual relationships. The language of difference and the ‘inno-
cent confusion’ caused by Martians’ and Venusians’ attempts to understand each
other ‘has an optimistic and non-confrontational feel to it’, which helps obscure
its implications for continued inequality. Annie Potts (1998) discussed these
implications in her analysis of Mars and Venus in the Bedroom:
[The text] surreptitiously and continuously entices the female reader to accept
and relax into her position of subordination, to resign herself to the natural/
inevitable authority of her man. Such surrender is never recognized as a differ-
ence in power between Martians and Venusians. Instead it masquerades as a
difference in their biology, or their souls, and therefore in their language and
culture(s); differences which in their origins must be considered natural, and
consequently ‘healthy’. (p.171, emphasis in original)

However, the ideology of difference displayed in self-help literature can also

be deployed to disrupt the status quo. As Dryden (1999) and others have noted,
heterosexual marriage lies at the crossroads between intergroup relations (with
women and men representing differently positioned social groups) and inter-
personal relationships (because each marriage is comprised of two unique indi-
viduals). It is not surprising that some men use emotional control tactics to foster
guilt and self-blame in their wives and thereby preserve their own power. But
men too are emotionally involved in their relationships. The non-confrontational
and non-blaming framework of M/V may offer openings for wives to bring up
issues of inequality and for husbands to ‘back down’ without loss of face. Power
imbalances in relationships are likely to change only if people start thinking and
talking about their behavior and their reasons for it (Giddens, 1993). The present
analysis suggests that the M/V texts may afford their female readers a discourse
for articulating problems of inequality in relationships and for holding their
partners accountable. In doing so, the readers may make visible some unexpected
sites of contention and create interpretations that compete with the texts’ own
ideology. In M/V-TV, the voices of the participants often expressed such
resistant readings of the ideology of difference.

Downloaded from http://fap.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 11, 2008

© 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
02_FAP14/1 articles 12/2/03 11:05 AM Page 76

76 Feminism & Psychology 14(1)

I am not suggesting that self-help psychology is unobjectionable. It is devel-

oped and promoted within the context of an individualistic culture that empha-
sizes achieving a unique ‘self’ and a ‘perfect relationship’ through making the
‘right choices’, diverting attention from the need for revisioning gender. Even
the most seemingly innocuous self-help materials may encode assumptions that
many feminists would find problematic (Cameron, 1999). However, the dis-
course analysis reported here suggests that M/V self-help psychology affords
multiple readings, some of which subvert the ideology that women and men are
fundamentally different in relationship needs and that it is women’s responsibility
to manage the resulting dissatisfactions. Just as the rhetoric of Mars and Venus
can function to legitimize claims of difference, it can also be enlisted as a source
of resistance. By opening up a place in the discourse of gender for articulating
and contesting heterosexual inequality, these texts and others like them may
undermine their own ideology.

NOTES

1. John Gray’s academic degrees are from unaccredited institutions, and he is not licensed
to practice psychology.
2. All segments of text reproduced here are taken from ABC Transcript #86, Men Are
From Mars, Women are From Venus, But We Have to Live on Earth, an ABC television
special broadcast 7 September 1997. The transcript was prepared by Federal Document
Clearing House under license from ABC.
3. The author thanks Danielle Popp for help in annotating the spoken text. The annotation
conventions were adapted from those devised by Gail Jefferson.

REFERENCES

Anderson, K.J. (1998) ‘Pop Psychology as Science and Infomercial as Journalism: ABC
News Sponsors John Gray’s Interplanetary Sexism’, Sojourner: The Women’s Forum
12(4): 1–2, 14–15, 44.
Anderson, K.J. and Accomando, C. (2002) ‘“Real” Boys? Manufacturing Masculinity and
Erasing Privilege in Popular Books on Raising Boys’, Feminism & Psychology 12:
491–516.
Bisshop, C. (2001) ‘Women Reading Self-Help Books: Gender, Folklinguistics and
Subjectivity’, unpublished dissertation, University of Melbourne.
Boynton, P. (2003) ‘Abiding by The Rules: Instructing Women in Relationships’, Femi-
nism & Psychology 13(2): 237–45.
Bruning, F. (1998) ‘The man from Mars’, Newsday, 17 February: B6.
Burman, E., Aitken, G., Alldred, P., Allwood, R., Billington, T., Goldberg, B., Gordo-
Lopez, A.J., Heenan, C., Marks, D. and Warner, S. (1996) Psychology Discourse
Practice: From Regulation to Resistance. London: Taylor and Francis.
Cameron, D. (1999) ‘Better Conversations: A Morality Play in Twelve Tapes’, Feminism
& Psychology 9(3): 315–33.

Downloaded from http://fap.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 11, 2008

© 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
02_FAP14/1 articles 12/2/03 11:05 AM Page 77

CRAWFORD: Mars and Venus Collide 77

Crawford, M. (1995) Talking Difference. London: Sage.

Crawford, M. (2001) ‘Mars and Venus Collide: Understanding Ideologies of Gender
Difference’, in M. Crawford (Chair) Domestic Tranquility? The Discursive Production
of Quiescence in Heterosexual Relationships, symposium presented at the annual meet-
ings of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco.
Crawford, M. and Marecek, J. (1989) ‘Psychology Reconstructs the Female’, Psychology
of Women Quarterly 13: 147–66.
Crawford, M. and Unger, R. (2004) Women and Gender: A Feminist Psychology (4th edi-
tion). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Dryden, C. (1999) Being Married, Doing Gender. London: Routledge.
Faludi, S. (1991) Backlash: The Undeclared War against American Women. New York:
Doubleday.
Fine, M. and Gordon, S.M. (1989) ‘Feminist Transformations of/despite Psychology’, in
M. Crawford and M. Gentry (eds) Gender and Thought: Psychological Perspectives,
pp. 146–74. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Foucault, M. (1977) Language, Counter-memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Inter-
views. London: Blackwell.
Giddens, A. (1993) The Transformation of Intimacy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Gill, R. (1995) ‘Relativism, Reflexivity, and Politics: Interrogating Discourse Analysis
from a Feminist Perspective’, in S. Wilkinson and C. Kitzinger (eds) Feminism and
Discourse: Psychological Perspectives, pp. 165–86. London: Sage.
Gleick, E. (1997) ‘Tower of Psychobabble: Self-help Author John Gray’s Empire’, Time,
16 June: 68–71.
Gray, J. (1992) Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. New York: Harper Collins.
Gray, J. (1995) Mars and Venus in the Bedroom: A Guide to Lasting Romance and
Passion. New York: Harper Collins.
Maltz, D.N. and Borker, R.A. (1982) ‘A Cultural Approach to Male–Female Miscom-
munication’, in J. Gumperz (ed.) Language and social identity, pp. 195–217. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marano, H.E. (1997) ‘Gottman and Gray: The Two Johns’, Psychology Today, November/
December: 28.
Parker, I. (1997) ‘Discursive Psychology’, in D. Fox and I. Prilleltensky (eds) Critical
Psychology: An Introduction, pp. 284–98. London: Sage.
Potter, J. and Wetherell, M. (1987) Discourse and Social Psychology. London: Sage.
Potts, A. (1998) ‘The Science/Fiction of Sex: John Gray’s Mars and Venus in the Bed-
room’, Sexualities 1: 153–73.
Radway, J. (1984) Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy, and Popular Literature.
Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Ruble, D.N., Fleming, A.S., Hackel, L.S. and Stangor, C. (1988) ‘Changes in the Marital
Relationship during the Transition to First Time Motherhood: Effects of Violated
Expectations Concerning Division of Household Labor’, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 55: 78–87.
Simonds, W. (1992) Women and Self-help Culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.
Steil, J.M.I. (1997) Marital Equality: Its Relationship to the Well-being of Husbands and
Wives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Steinberg, L. and Silverberg, S.B. (1987) ‘Influences on Marital Satisfaction during the

Downloaded from http://fap.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 11, 2008

© 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
02_FAP14/1 articles 12/2/03 11:05 AM Page 78

78 Feminism & Psychology 14(1)

Middle Stages of the Family Life Cycle. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49:
751–60.
Tannen, D. (1990) You Just Don’t Understand. New York: Ballantine.
United Nations (1991) The World’s Women 1970–1990: Trends and Statistics. New York:
United Nations Publications.
Ussher, J. (1991) Women’s Madness: Misogyny or Mental Illness? Brighton: Harvester
Wheatsheaf.
Walsh-Bowers, R. (1999) ‘Fundamentalism in Psychological Science: The APA Manual
as “Bible”’, Psychology of Women Quarterly 23: 375–92.
Wetherell, M. (1995) ‘Romantic Discourse and Feminist Analysis: Interrogating
Investment, Power and Desire’, in S. Wilkinson and C. Kitzinger (eds) Feminism and
Discourse: Psychological Perspectives, pp. 128–44. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wilkinson, S. (1988) The Role of Reflexivity in Feminist Psychology. Women’s Studies
International Forum 11: 493–502.
Wilkinson, S. (1997) ‘Feminist Psychology’, in D. Fox (ed.) Critical Psychology: An
Introduction, pp. 247–64. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Worell, J. (1988) ‘Women’s Satisfaction in Close Relationships’, Clinical Psychology
Review, 8: 477–98.

APPENDIX: ANNOTATION CONVENTIONS

... Ellipses indicate talk omitted. When entire lines are omitted, the
ellipses appear vertically.
[] Square brackets indicate the beginning and end of overlapping talk.
(.) (..) ( . . . ) Dots enclosed in parentheses indicate pauses. The number of dots
roughly categorizes the pause as short, medium, or long.
he’s a Martian= Equal signs connecting two lines indicate that the talk on one
=A man= line was followed immediately by the next speaker’s talk without
=how can you even a momentary pause.
have his cave Underlining indicates vocal emphasis.
That HE KNOW Words or syllables in capital letters indicate extreme vocal empha-
sis and loudness.
u::sually Colons indicate that a syllable was elongated or ‘stretched’. The
number of colons roughly categorizes the extent of elongation.
And- A hyphen indicates a sudden breaking off of speech.
Women are say(ing) Parentheses around words or syllables indicate that the transcriber
is in doubt about the exact word or syllable because it was virtually
inaudible.
((laughter)) Double parentheses indicate transcriber comments.

Downloaded from http://fap.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 11, 2008

© 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
02_FAP14/1 articles 12/2/03 11:05 AM Page 79

CRAWFORD: Mars and Venus Collide 79

?,.! Punctuation indicates pitch changes. The question mark indicates

rising pitch, the comma a slight fall, the period a marked drop, and
the exclamation point an emphatic pitch.
.hhh This notation indicates audible drawing in of breath. The number
of hs roughly indicates the duration of the inbreath sound.
I’m gonna Modified spelling is used to suggest pronunciation variants.

Mary CRAWFORD is Professor of Psychology and former Director of the

Women’s Studies Program at the University of Connecticut. Books she has
authored, co-authored or edited include Gender and Thought: Psychological
Perspectives (Springer-Verlag,1989); Talking Difference: On Gender and
Language (Sage,1995); Gender Differences in Human Cognition (Oxford
University Press,1997); Coming Into Her Own: Educational Success in Girls
and Women (Jossey-Bass,1999); Innovative Methods for Feminist
Psychological Research (Cambridge University Press,1999); Practicing
Perfection: Memory and Piano Performance (Erlbaum, 2002) and a widely used
text and reader, Women and Gender: A Feminist Psychology (4th edition,
McGraw-Hill, 2003) and In Our Own Words (2nd edition, McGraw-Hill, 2001).
Her current research and theoretical preoccupation is on the social psychology
of language, gender and communication.
ADDRESS: Department of Psychology, 406 Babbidge Road, U-1020,
University of Connecticut, Storrs CT 06269–1020, USA
[email: [email protected]]

Downloaded from http://fap.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 11, 2008

© 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

View publication stats