Critique

The author talks about the reflection of cohabiting and married couples regarding lifestyles. The author states the main idea clearly that is “cohabitation has proven to be one of the popular couple-responses to the decline in traditional marital expectations” (Wiersma, 1983, p.125). Wiersma provides examples and surveys to support her main idea, which her examples are all actually facts. The author’s argument is logical and it supports the main idea because what she says is it always depends on a person’s lifestyle to choose whether he or she suitable to cohabit or marry in nowadays. There is sufficient evidence for the argument. For example, today women depend on men less for their survival. Some women think that they can still survive and live happily without marrying or relying on men. This obviously proves the reason why marriage is declining now. However, the author does not provide enough points to support her idea. For example, may the culture in every country affect people’s choices of choosing to cohabit or marry? What about religions and any traditional histories? The author gives too many people’s point of view but neglects some things which can also affect the result of cohabitation and marriage importantly. In my own opinion, I agree what the author says about “relationships are choices made equally for personal reasons” (Wiersma, 1983, p.126). People should choose their choices depend on their own lifestyles and personalities. However, I do not fully support the author’s last point, which is “cohabitation can be an alternative to marriage”. Cohabitation and marriage are two different kinds of matter. Both of them can not be replaced by each other. Although the author says that “there is an increase of rationality in the modern world and a diminishing of the mythical, the romantic, and the poetic” (Wiersma, 1983, p.124), I think marriage is still an important role in the society and it is not easily replaced by cohaitation.

Reading Task #4

According to Geertje Else Wiersma in her book “Cohabitation, an alternative to marriage?”, 1983, she explains that the differences between cohabiting and married couples may contribute to the degree of individuation. “It seems that those who link marriage to greater security, stability, and self-fulfilment are the least individuated”, the author says (Wiersma, 1983, p.116). She then states that differences in social economic background hardly contribute to explaining individuation differences. However, Wiersma observes that “to be more individuated is certainly not an inherent trait of cohabiting couples. It can be found equally among married couples as long as certain dyadic conditions or characteristics pertain” (Wiersma, 1983, p.121). She reports that “everyone will create his or her own response to the tension of freedom and commitment that is inherent in couple intimacy, which is precisely the underlying theme of the study” (Wiersma, 1983, p.121).
In addition, Wiersma provides final observations about cohabiting couples by reflecting on the lifestyle in the context of societal changes. She clearly states the thesis statement that “cohabitation has proven to be one of the popular couple-responses to this decline in traditional marital expectations” (Wiersma, 1983, p.125). She generally recognizes that the notion of marriage is “a haven or a place for belonging is transmitted to baby-boom generation and the increase of rationality in the modern world and a diminishing of the mythical, the romantic, and the poetic” (Wiersma, 1983, p.123-124) to prove that the ratio of people who want to marry is declining. Furthermore, Wiersma explains the main difference between cohabiting and married couples “lies not in the fact that one is legally married and the other is not, rather in what they believe marriage has to offer in terms of security and stability, and in practical and legal conveniences” (Wiersma, 1983, p.128). Finally, the author states out that due to many things, such as styles, the sexual revolution and world-wide economic inflation are changing in the world, women and men make their own choice regarding their lifestyles.

Critique of reading task #3

The authors talk about the welfare benefits and the safety net programs of marriage and cohabitation and the differences between them. The authors state a clear topic sentence in each paragraph and they provide graphs and surveys to support their ideas. They also use other professors’ statement to support their thoughts such as professors Bumpass and Lu have found that “cohabitation increased dramatically between 1987 and 1995 using nationally representative data” (Booth and Crouter, 2002, p.194). The authors’ facts are believable because they state the results from the surveys. The text is well- organized, clear and easy to read. For example, one of the section the authors use the listing method to organize their texts. The text of the book can help me understand the subject. For example I can easily recognize the benefit levels and the program rules for marriage and cohabitation. In conclusion, I agree what the authors say about the difference between marriage and cohabitation of the welfare benefits that “welfare benefits provide a disincentive to marry” (Booth and Crouter, 2002, p.194). Welfare provides more benefits to single mothers than married parents.

Reading Task #3

According to Alan Booth and Ann C. Crouter in their book “Just Living Together”, 2002, “welfare and tax policies influence a range of decisions about family, including decisions to marry, have children, or cohabit” (Booth and Crouter, 2002, p.191). The authors state that “there is evidence which the structure of many U.S. families is changing in dramatic ways” (Booth and Crouter, 2002, p.194). Booth and Crouter then report that the conventional wisdom keeps that welfare benefits are providing a disincentive to marry. They indicate that “ The 1996 welfare reform law requires states to use Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) to serve needy children and their families, but the law does not define family” (Booth and Crouter, 2002, p.196). The authors then explain that under the TANF rules, cohabiting parents are treated in much the same way as married parents in all the states. For taxes, Booth and Crouter note that “the eligibility rules for the earned income tax credit (ELTC) can treat unmarried cohabiting workers more generously than married couples, who must file jointly and count income together” (Booth and Crouter, 2002, p.201). They also calculate the combined financial effect of TANF, food stamps, child support, and the federal tax in order to indicate the families fare under low-income programs.

Summary of "Cohabitation, an alternative to marriage?"

According to author Geertje Else Wiersma in his book "Cohabitation, an alternative to marriage?", 1983, "Marriage is, or perhaps more correctly, was often projected as the fulfillment of a romantic dream: two separate individuals finding each other, falling in love, and, after a period of going steady, becoming engaged to marry with hopes soon to live happily ever after"(1983, p.85). However, Wiersma also defines cohabitation as "either a gradual process without any real decision or, it occurs at a certain time after the couple has made a more or less evident decision"(1983, p.85"). She states the attitude of cohabitants towards marriage is a logical next step when they think their relationship has proven to be a good one and they would like to find a"more stability" and " more emotional security" in marriage(1983, p.91). The author also explains the attitude of marrieds towards marriage is "more practical conveniences", "a home life" and "somebody to grow old with"(1983, p.91). In addition, Wiersma reports that the four main points of cohabitants in comparison with marrieds are "position, structure, function and psychological climate"(1983, p.110).

Summary of “Just Living Together”

According to Alan Booth and Ann C Crouter in “Just Living Together”, 2002, the authors state the main idea that “Although cohabitation is often regarded as a recent development, it includes a range of living arrangements some of which are novel whereas others are more traditional”(2002, p. 3). Then they observe that there were two types of cohabitation in the 19^th century: one was “Marriage of conscience”, which means that only church marriages were permitted at that time and the second one was “Stockholm marriages” which means the poor people those who could not afford to marry. For the new form of cohabitation, the authors note that this form of cohabitation started in the 1970s and it has rapidly increased during the 1980s and 1990s, by the way of young people are now living together as an alternative to marriage.

Alan Booth and Ann C Courter say in the book “At any given time, cohabitation may have different meanings for the men and women involved” (2002, p.5). They examine that cohabitation has eclipsed marriage in many countries. They also explain that the ratio of marriage is directly higher compare with those who did not experience their parental divorce during childhood and those who did.

Hey This is Inez!! I am 19. I am from Hong Kong and I love volleyball and chocolate the most!!!!