emmanuel reynaud holy virility the social construction of masculinity

of Christianity, to usher it into the new household of the
deserving executive: and publications aimed at women rapidly
followed suit. From the beginning of the seventies, each
magazine began to hum the same tune, through adverts as
much as the articles. Amour of April 1974 suggests, backed up
by examples: ''And if he were to be unfaithful to me with another
me . . .'' Lou, at the same time, was selling its bra 'Certitude'
using the same ideology: ''It is not because you are a mother
that men will no longer look at you as a woman.'' Marie-Claire of
February 1973 was even more specific, and evaluated women's
going rate on the market: ''The wife is the new star. Mistresses
are going down, lawful wives are going up. She now holds all
the trumps to become that rare bird; the married mistress, It
only takes the guts . . .'' The accompanying photo showed a
woman, evoking Marilyn Monroe, lasciviously sprawled across a
washing machine, with Place Clichy, a red light-district, in the
background.
The idea has been so successful that it is sometimes hard to
imagine that, only ten or fifteen years ago, the married woman's
image was totally different. The woman who enjoys sex no
longer risks being burnt at the stake, and being automatically
considered hysterical: on the contrary, she will be praised by
Cosmopolitan. At the same time, the husband finds it difficult to
honour all the clauses in the new property contract proposed to
him.
In their effort to do away with one of the contradictions in
marriage, the specialists have, in fact, created another: the
husband now finds himself responsible for providing not only
board and lodging but also for his wife's 'right to pleasure'. It is
more than he bargained for; in most cases he would have been
happy to be able to continue coming in peace, rather than have
to worry about giving his wife an orgasm. If she insists on strict
adherence to the new convention, it only needs him to fail to
satisfy her demands for there to develop a ground for conflict. It
is obvious that this change in conjugal sex is not always
appreciated by the man class. But is this new source of irritation
not a necessary evil for the husband: could the competent
authorities have left matters as they were?
The balance of power within marriage has changed
considerably, in Judeo-Christian patriarchy, since the beginning
of the century; reflecting contradictions between patriarchal
organisation and the capitalist mode of production. The power
conferred by law on the husband, for example, has been
seriously whittled down from the point of view of the wife's
financial dependence. In France, until 1907, civil law did not
allow a married woman to work outside the home without her
husband's permission, nor to receive her own salary herself.
The law of 13 July 1907 enabled her to dispose of her salary;
with the law of 18 February 1938 she no longer had to obtain
permission to work outside the home (although the husband
maintained the right to oppose it), and finally, the law of 13 July
1965 granted her the 'right to follow I profession without the
husband's consent' (art. 273). The married woman has obtained,