<![CDATA[This study analyzes the influence of gender role ideology on marital stability through two lenses: first, the acceptance of Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment (GEWE); and second, the structure of Conjugal Moral Judgment (CMJ) and Conjugal Moral Resiliency (CMR). The study involved three ideological groups: Egalitarian (N=84), Patriarchal (N=13), and Matriarchal (N=16). In terms of GEWE acceptance, all groups showed generally positive acceptance, with the Egalitarian group having the highest average acceptance, but all groups exhibited uniform rejection toward the Reproductive Health (RH) agenda (M=2.48), indicating a pervasive moral boundary related to the Sanctity foundation. The primary finding is the discovery of a plurality of moral strategies in maintaining marital integrity. Structurally, the Egalitarian group demonstrates a significant Institutional Gap in CMJ, prioritizing individualizing foundations (Care and Fairness) far above binding foundations (Loyalty and Authority). Crucially, this study introduces the concept of CMR and measures it using Standard Deviation (SD) as an indicator of internal moral consensus. The results show that the Patriarchal group employs a Uniform Institutional Strategy with the lowest CMR SD (SD=0.13), signifying the highest moral consensus and predictability. In contrast, the Egalitarian group utilizes a Flexible Individual Strategy with a relatively higher CMR SD (SD=0.16), indicating greater moral negotiation and adaptation. This research contributes substantively by shifting the focus from "what is believed" to "how uniform is that belief" (measured by SD), proving that gender ideology dictates not only moral configuration but also the consistency of marital resilience mechanisms. The findings recommend that family strengthening policies must accommodate the plurality of strategies—whether institution-based (Patriarchal/Matriarchal) or individual-based (Egalitarian)—rather than imposing uniformity.]]>
Copyrights © 2025
