Chapter 4 Flashcards
(47 cards)
1
Q
non-marital cohabitation (historic pov to today’s pov)
A
- historically, marriage would be next step (cohabiting without getting married meant that you had undesireable traits - you couldn’t commit)
- cohabitation has moved from being viewed as a deviant form of union formation to the preferred social norm that precedes marriage
2
Q
rise in cohabitation
A
- in the 60’s and 70’s, cohabitation before marriage was rare (10%), in the 90’s it was more common (55%)
- in Canada, 12% of unions were non-marital (except Quebec - 30%)
3
Q
historical context causing change from marriage to cohabitation
A
- labour markets (women are now in the workforce and don’t need to marry for economic stability)
- educational norms
- secularization of society (religions push marriage, so if our society becomes less religious, marriage is pushed less)
- feminist movement, availability of birth control, sexual revolution, and reduced stigma of single parenthood
- rapid rise in divorce rate (1/3 of couples divorce)
4
Q
necessity of marriage historically
A
- marriage happened out of economic necessity rather than being based on attraction
- women relied on men to protect and provide for them and their children
- men relied on women for childcare and meal prep
- children were economic assets who provided additional labour for household needs
- industrial revolution broke this economic dependency
5
Q
technological context for sexual freedom
A
- tech increases freedom and autonomy from parental monitoring, making courtship and sexual exploration easier
- in 1920, the car; in 2010, the cell phone
6
Q
Canadian cohabitation context
A
- cohabitation highly influenced by context
- Canada is a multicultural bilingual country with a tolerance for diverse ethnic traditions
- cohabitation is much more socially acceptable in Quebec (and amongst Aboriginal groups) and as a result more prevalent than in other parts of Canada
- the longer the cohabitation lasts, the more likely children will be present
7
Q
3 main results of cohabitation studies
A
- the more cohabitation is accompanied by fertility, the more it will resemble and compete with marriage as a preferred form of family formation
- cohabitation before marriage still has higher rates of relationship breakups (but this is starting to change)
- normativeness of cohabitation affects a variety of family transition events such as fertility, stability, and formation patterns
8
Q
why do cohabitors tend to break up?
A
- each partner has different ideas about what the cohabitation means
- the couple may be less religious and therefore can easily get divorced
- because cohabitation is like a marriage trial, partners may have doubts about whether each other would be good spouses
- takes away from excitement of being married -> you’ve already had “the newlywed experience”
9
Q
diffusion’s role in cohabitation
A
- you’ll have early adopters and late adopters, with the general population fitting in between those 2 extremes
- as cohabitation becomes more common, distinctions between those who cohabit before marriage and those who don’t will diminish
10
Q
international rates of cohabitation
A
- Fairly common in some parts of Europe
- Rare in Eastern Europe, Asia, North Africa, South Asia, and the Philippines
- Common in Latin America (ie. Brazil) and poorer central American countries (ie. Carribean, Haiti, Jamaica) - due to poverty, it makes sense to live together and pool resources
11
Q
international cohabitation legislations
A
- different countries have different legislation regarding cohabitation
- almost all nations have REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP LEGISLATION -> provides marriage equivalent status and protection (though not always available for same-sex couples)
- cohabitation benefits (ie. health insurance) vary across nations
- definition of cohabitation varies
12
Q
common-law marriages
A
- couples who are in a marriage-like relationship, but without the ceremony
- not synonymous with cohabitation
13
Q
what constitutes official cohabitation
A
- ongoing sexual relations
- duration of cohabitation
- holding of a joint living address
14
Q
legal tools for asset protection and estate planning for cohabitors
A
- cohabitation agreements
- domestic partnership agreements
- power of attorney
- living wills
- health permission release forms
- without these, assets won’t automatically go to surviving partner (may go to parents, siblings, etc.)
15
Q
cohabitation agreements
A
- define limitations and boundaries of responsibility should the union dissolve
- often not recognized since they attempt to circumvent laws that protect distinctiveness of marriage (ie. DOMA)
16
Q
domestic partnerships
A
- provides marriage-equivalent status and protections
- have more legal recognition, but aren’t universal and aren’t always available to same-sex couples
17
Q
power of attorney
A
if something happens to you, your partner can decide what to do with your finances, assets, etc.
18
Q
living wills
A
your end of life requests
19
Q
health permission release forms
A
gives your partner permission to pull you off of life support or not, allow you to have treatment or not, etc.
20
Q
proactive strategies for child custody
A
- second parent adoption
- co-guardianship
- cohabitation agreement
21
Q
second-parent adoption
A
- adopting your step-children so that even if you and your partner break up, you still have custody
- limited to only a few states, and can only happen if their other biological parent is dead or has abandoned the kids
22
Q
co-guardianship
A
keeps all responsibilities of a legal parent (ex. Medical issues of child)
23
Q
reactive strategy for child custody
A
third-party visitation rights - long shot because it requires proof that legal parent is unfit
24
Q
5 criteria for assigning child custody
A
- couple has resided together for significant period of time
- parental relationship has been established between the child and the individual with no parental rights
- parties have ended relationship
- no traditional second legal parent
- parent without parental rights has been alienated from child
25
intergenerational cohabitation
- a parent's religiosity, education, SES, marriage stability, family structure, etc. can influence child's union formation and stability patterns (ex. people who grew up in a cohabiting-parent family more likely to cohabit)
- channeling hypothesis
26
channeling hypothesis
parents want to steer their children towards certain beliefs and behaviours and will often channel their children into other supporting socialization opportunities (ex. control of child's peer network, control of sports they play, etc.) - this can change their attitudes about cohabitation
27
"sliders"
- no official discussion/decision to cohabit - just gradually get there by bringing more and more stuff to partner's place
- associated with longer cohabitation period
- had significantly lower separation rate (due to lower/different expectations and less pressure put onto relationship)
28
"deciders"
- use cohabitation as a screening process to weed out potentially unsuccessful relationships before marriage
- shorter cohabitation periods
- break up faster (higher expectations and pressure put on relationship because they're thinking of progressing to next stage)
29
cohabitation effect
- people who cohabit before marriage are more likely to get divorced
- as cohabitation becomes more normative, this may change
30
birth control and the sexual revolution
- allowed people to become more liberal with their sexuality
- people treated sex as a fun activity rather than a symbol of a huge commitment to another person -> less people waited until marriage to have sex
- Reiss's theory of autonomy
31
Reiss's theory of autonomy
- if youth culture stresses rewards of sexuality, youth will develop their own emphasis on sexuality
- autonomy of young people is key variable in determining how sexually permissive one will be
32
why is cohabitation a good fit for today's 20-something cohort?
- cohort is jaded by divorce
- sees 20's as a time for no-strings-attached relationships rather than trying to find a life partner
- cohabitation allows for sexual relationships without large commitment
33
Heuveline and Timberlake's 6 typologies of cohabitation
1. marginal
2. prelude to marriage
3. transition stage
4. alternative to being single
5. alternative to marriage
6. indistinguishable from marriage
34
marginal typology
low incidence of cohabitation, frowned upon by public attitudes and policies
35
prelude to marriage typology
short cohabitations, end in marriage, precede children
36
transition stage typology
longer cohabitations, have kids during cohabitation and marry shortly after their birth
37
alternative to being single typology
brief, non-reproductive cohabitations, end in separation
38
alternative to marriage typology
long cohabitations, less likely to get married, expose kids to cohabitation for longer periods
39
indistinguishable from marriage typology
higher incidences of long-lasting cohabitation, children frequently exposed to cohabitation but for shorter times
40
effects of cohabitation on marital stability
- women who cohabit are much more likely to break up than women who get married
- however, if you cohabit before marriage, stability is either improved or not affected
- may be due to religiosity and selection hypothesis
41
selection hypothesis
people with fewer relationship skills or less commitment tend to cohabit -> explains later marital instability
42
what kind of relationship is expected between post-cohabitation marital stability?
curvilinear relationship
43
civil unions
- relationship status granted to same-sex couples when same-sex marriage is illegal
- grants couple same legal rights as married couples
44
legal similarities and differences between married and cohabiting couples
- both have right to: spousal support, child support, child custody, dependant's relief upon death of partner
- married couples have (while cohabitors don't): equalization payment upon separation or death, unlimited time to apply for spousal support, possession of matrimonial home upon separation or death, succession rights if partner dies
45
effects of cohabitation on children
- children born to cohabitors have less positive outcomes
| - for teens: correlation with earlier sex, teen pregnancy, and lower rates of high school graduation
46
why does cohabitation before marriage negatively affect later marital quality?
- selection effect
- experience effect
- cohabitation is associated with higher acceptance of divorce
47
cohabitation and the elderly
- cohabitation is fastest-growing amongst elderly
- why? economic issues decrease attractiveness of marriage; less incentives to remarry
- cohabitation plays different role for older couples than younger ones
