Chapter
9 examines the relationship options people have and how they have changed. It
discusses four nontraditional living arrangements outside, before, or after
marriage which includes singlehood, cohabitation, same-sex households, and
communal residences. It begins by suggesting that changes in relationship
options give people more freedom and choices than ever before and allow them to pursue
alternatives to the traditional living arrangements. Then it examines singlehood and the fact that the number
of people opting out of marriage and remaining single has increased in recent
years. This increase could be because of a growing acceptance of people who
choose to stay single as well as the fact that more people are placing a higher
priority on getting an education, building a career, and developing
their personal identity than searching for mates. Many
people have simply decided to postpone marriage to later in life. Both men and
women are putting much thought into who and when they marry. There are several
types of singles mentioned in this section; voluntary
temporary singles who are not opposed to marrying, but put more emphasis on
other activities in life than mate selection, voluntary stable singles who do not intend to ever marry, involuntary temporary singles who plan
to marry after they take the time to select the right mate, and involuntary stable singles who
would like to marry, but are forced to remain
single because they cannot find a suitable mate. However, for many the single
status is not necessarily permanent; one can change from a temporary or
involuntary style to a stable or voluntary style. There seems to be a double
standard when it comes to singles; men are more likely to marry younger
women, resulting in an increasing number of older women remaining single;
additionally, older women are more likely than older men to remain single after
a divorce or being widowed. There are many
advantages and disadvantages of being single; on the beneficial side, there is
more freedom and less pain/distress involved in singlehood; one drawback,
however, is that some singles can become lonely and unhappy (but this is not
always the case). As more and more people embrace singlehood, household sizes
continue to shrink.
The
next section analyzes different patterns in singlehood and the reasons people
are single/living alone. Overall, those who are single are more likely to be
older American white women; men and members of racial-ethnic groups are less
likely to live alone. Many racial-ethnic groups share values that emphasize
familism and the extended family. There are many rational explanations why
people live alone: more women are able to afford it these days; it offers more freedom than living
with others satisfying the value of individualism; an increasing number of
Americans are living longer enabling them to live independently after
retirement; and because people have more options which influences them to
postpone or opt out of marriage. Many postpone marriage because macro-level factors
affect demographic variables which in turn influence individual behavior. Macro-level
factors may include war, technological advances, social movements like the women’s
and gay rights movement, economic factors and gender roles. These factors often
influence demographic variables like sex ratios (the proportion of men
to women in a country or group), marriage squeeze (a sex imbalance in the ratio
of available unmarried women and men that cause members of one sex to be
squeezes out of the marriage market), social class (the greater one’s income,
the less financial barriers to marriage), and non-marital childbearing (small
pool of suitable mates cause many mothers to remain single or cohabit). In
turn, these demographic variables influence individual reasons like the decision
to wait for the “ideal mate”, desire to remain independent, no interest in making
a commitment or having children, the fear of divorce , as well as the fact that
being healthy and physically attractive influences one’s ability to receive a
mate and marry.
Chapter
9 then goes into detail about the decrease in the number of married people and the
increase in the number of divorced and never-married people. It examines different
racial and ethnic groups to depict these changes in terms of structural factors
as well as values and attitudes. African Americans have the highest rate
of single people with a high proportion of never married individuals; there
appears to be a shortage of suitable African American men because mortality
rates or imprisonment. Educated black women are often reluctant to marry men
who are less educated and these women seem to place a higher priority on
academic achievement than on developing personal relationships. More and more Latinos
are choosing singlehood; with unemployment rates being high and the affect of
younger population not being at a marriageable age plus the struggle to marry
when one is considered an illegal immigrant has resulted in the increased
number of unmarried individuals. In addition, despite the Latino culture’s emphasis
on the importance of family they have assimilated into America’ values and behaviors
causing traditional values to have change and the marriage rate to decrease. Asian
Americans have the lowest singlehood rates. This could be due to the strong
emphasis on the family and the fact that many women intermarry, which decreases
the number of singles; however, there still remains a vast amount of singles
caused by acculturation and its effect on influencing higher divorce rates.
The
discussion on singlehood ends with the chapter providing and clarifying many
myths and misconception about singlehood. The myth that is that singles are
selfish and self-centered; the reality is married people are more self-centered.
The thought that singles are well-off financially is a misconception; the
reality is quite the opposite. More
singles live below the poverty level than married couple who are well-off
financially if both partners work. Another myth is that singles are usually
lonely and miserable and want to marry but living alone is not necessarily
equivalent to feeling lonely. The
assumption that singles are either promiscuous or don’t get any sex is false
because singles have more sexual freedom. Many believe children of single parents are doomed to a life of
emotional and behavioral problems and possibly poverty but children of married
parents may suffer from the same situations depending on a parent’s resources
and behavior. The thought that singles worry about growing old and dying alone is
unlikely because in general they rarely worry about this as they are involved
in other activities. A final fallacy presented claims that there is something
wrong with people who don’t marry but there is NOTHING is wrong with people who
choose to remain single. With these myths clarified, it is clear that many
singles live good lives, perhaps even better than married ones.
Cohabitation
is the next nontraditional living arrangement discussed. This is a living
arrangement where a couple live together without being formally married. In
recent years the overall number of people cohabiting has increased. Once
frowned upon, acceptance of cohabitation has increased in part because of the
belief that couples are less likely to get divorced if they live together
before marriage. Some disapprove of cohabitation because it is believed to be
immoral and may have a negative effect on children. The chapter explains 4
different types of cohabitation: 1) dating cohabitation occurs when a
couple decides to move in together after spending a great amount of time
together. With the lowest level of commitment, this arrangement may involve serial cohabitation, which entails
moving from one partner to another to live with. 2) premarital cohabitation
consists of partners testing the relationship before making a final commitment;
3) trial marriage occurs when couples move in together to see what
marriage might be like; and 4)substitute marriage is a long-term
commitment between two people who don’t plan to marry.
The majority of cohabitating couples are between 25 and 44 years old who
are not highly educated and not well off economically. But rates have increased
for 65 and older cohabiting as many widowed people live long healthy lives and
remarrying would force them to give up their former spouse’s benefits. American
Indians/Native Alaskans and African Americans have the highest rate of
cohabitation while Asian Americans have the lowest rates. In addition,
religious Americans are often less likely to cohabit because they believe
premarital cohabitation is immoral and increases the odds of divorce; but this
trend is gradually changing as an increasing number of religious teens begin to
accept cohabitation. Many costs and benefits of cohabitation are discussed. The
BENEFITS include: gaining more independence, easy dissolving of relationship,
couples build more of an understanding for each other, no in-laws to deal with,
and it may give children some economic advantages. The COSTS include: may cause
one to experience a loss of identity, more demand on women to do household
chores, greater likelihood of negative behaviors after marriage, causes weaker
family ties, and U.S laws don’t specify a cohabitant’s responsibilities and
rights. It is noted that cohabitation does not lead to better marriages; in
fact, there are higher divorce rates among those who lived together before
marriage; this may be explained by a selection
effect (differences in characteristics between those who cohabit before
marriage and those who don’t), cohabitation
effect (many cohabitants view cohabitation as an alternative to marriage,
which may lead to dissatisfaction after actual marriages, causing many to
divorce), or an inertia effect (some
cohabitants believe there’s no reason they shouldn’t get married so they just
go for it). Cohabitation can also negatively affect children in the sense that
they are more likely to experience domestic violence, poverty, and behavioral
and academic problems. Today, seven states have laws banning cohabitation;
cohabitant couples have very little legal protection and their relationships
often end with an immense amount of legal problems.
Because
same-sex marriage are legal in only five states many gay and lesbians turn to
cohabitation. Unlike traditional heterosexual relationships, gay and lesbian
relationships are based on individual characteristics, not husband-wife or
masculine-feminine gender roles. Like heterosexual cohabitants, homosexual
couples experience conflicts in 4 areas: 1) power, 2) personal flaw, 3)
intimacy, and 4) physical absence. Throughout history, homosexuals have
undergone a great amount of rejection; this rejection is most common from
racial-ethnic families whose values about marriage and the family are based on religious
beliefs, which consider homosexuality as a sin. Opponents of civil unions and
same-sex marriage are religious, often from southern states, 65 years old or
older often have conservative views on family issues.
Furthermore, there have been many legal issues involved with homosexuals
like the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996 by President
Bill Clinton banning the distribution of federal benefits to homosexuals;
however, in 2009 President Obama extended some benefits to homosexuals. Like
cohabitation, many (36) states have laws banning gay marriage. Nevertheless,
there has been an increase in acceptance of gay marriage over the years in many
states, supporters argue that gay marriages may increase the stability of
same-sex couples and lead to better health conditions for them; while those who
oppose gay marriage argue that it is immoral and may weaken traditional
notions of marriage.
The
last non-traditional living arrangement discussed is communal living
arrangements. Communes are collective households in which children and
adults from different families live together. These living arrangements often
fulfill the economic and social needs of many people; members in such
residences share expenses and have companionship. Elderly single adults often
turn to these as an alternative to living with their children or in a nursing home.
These are not new inventions, rather they have been around for several years,
but are undergoing some modern changes. The chapter concludes by asserting that
while relationships are drastically changing and there are more options
available outside, before, and after marriage. But the chapter states, these
alternatives are not without limited freedoms.
2. What was
interesting/what did you learn:
After
reading this chapter, the thing that really caught my attention was the fact
that cohabitation may actually increase the likelihood of divorce. I always
thought it was a good idea to live with your mate before deciding on any
long-term commitment because it helps you get to know each other better and
find out if your feelings for each other are strong enough for a lasting
relationship. I thought living with someone before marriage would decrease the
divorce rates for cohabiting couples because it would help couples get a better
feeling of what it would be like living together as a married couple, and would
help them adjust better to post-marital conditions than individuals who did not
live together before marriage. But clearly it is not as simple as it sounds.
The cohabitation effect really made me realize that my thought process might be
too good to be true. I now understand cohabiting couples may grow to accept the
temporary nature of relationships and begin to view cohabitation as an
alternative to marriage so that when they actually legally marry they encounter
new dissatisfactions that they are unwilling to deal with and cause them to divorce.
In addition, I found it interesting that the selection effect may be a
reasonable explanation for higher divorce rates among cohabitants because people
who cohabit before marriage usually behave differently than those who do not;
cohabitants are less likely to put effort into the relationship and less likely
to compromise than noncohabitants which often causes conflicts and less desire
to remain together. These effects really made me stop and think about the steps
I wish to take to end up in a stable and healthy marriage.
3. Discussion
Point:
I found the section on how cohabitation
affects children very interesting and worth discussing. A good friend has a
1-year-old son and is currently living with her boyfriend (the baby’s
biological father), which according to this chapter, makes them a cohabiting
couple. I could not help but think of them when I read that children growing up
with cohabiting parents often have worse life outcomes than those who grow up
with married couples. This concerns me and makes me a little uncomfortable. But
I have to disagree with some of the negative consequences listed about
cohabiting parents verse noncohabiting parents; like the fact that cohabitants
are less likely to spend money on necessities for children and more likely to
buy adult goods. I don’t think this if a fair generalization and does not take
into consideration cohabitant parents who truly adore and care about their
children. My friend spends money everyday on her son to keep him healthy and
safe; she buys food that is healthy and nutritious for her son and does with
things she may want for herself. In addition, I would also disagree that they undergo more
domestic violence, maybe some but not all, as my friend refrains from arguing
in front of her son and the father has as much of an investment in the
relationship as her; they both want to do what is best for the child and work
at having a healthy relationship together to raise him well. So I would have to
disagree with the chapters argument that most children with cohabiting parents
face much more negative effects than children with noncohabiting parents; it
hasn’t even considered the possible benefits of children growing up with
cohabiting parents; one must look at the broader picture and consider the
positive effects a child might face with growing up with both biological
parents who maintain a healthier relationship living together than unhappy
married parents or separated parents. So my question is, do you agree with the
text’s statement that children growing up with cohabiting parents are worse off
than children who grow up with married couples? Or do you think they are
equally likely to grow up with negative life outcomes such as academic,
emotional, and behavioral problems?
No comments:
Post a Comment