to be the primary caregivers in the home, almost all of the wives wanted to return to work

as soon as possible, and the women reported feeling like they were more affected by

marriage and children than were their husbands. These facts contradicted the couples'

stated belief that their relationships should be fair. The couples did not think the women's

situation could be changed at present because of the needs of the children and other

constraints, but expressed their belief it would be changing in the future. To cope with

this situation, most of the couples simply articulated the problem. Backett noted "It

seemed that the respondents felt that as long as both spouses, and especially the husband,

reiterated an awareness of the woman's problems, then the situation was not so

potentially disruptive" (p. 68). This coping mechanism also came into play as the couples

considered that the fathers were not as involved with their children as they felt they

should be. They would articulate the problem and tell each other they were involving the

father as much as possible. They emphasized that they talked with each other about the

children and that the fathers were involved in making decisions relevant to the children.

In this way, passive involvement was not distinguished from active involvement.

 A second way the couples coped with the seeming unfairness of the wives'

situation was through practical compensation. In the couples' daily lives, "many

activities were geared towards making the womanfeel that she had equal freedom and

that the man was both aware of, and making compensations for, any unfairness in their

family bargain" (p. 69). One way of doing this was fathers showing a great deal of

interest in what the mothers were doing, trying to assure them of its importance. Another

way was the men would take over child care for an evening or weekend-day, which

would create a sense of fairness for the women. This seemed to be effective in creating a