Post gender Marriage and the family

 Name:
Professor:
Course:
Date:
Post gender Marriage and the family
Introduction 
	The definition of marriage/wedlock varies according to the different cultures in the world but basically matrimony can be defined as the social union or mostly, the legal union of man and woman. This is a definition that eliminates the recent development in the globe where the partners in a marriage, in some parts of the country and more broadly the world, may not be of the opposite sex. It is logical to disregard the other “types of marriages” in this argumentative critique of the journal since the authors of the article and the research itself only focused on the traditional form of marriage involving a man and a woman.
	An egalitarian arrangement in the undertaking of family chores being the basis of the article, it is clear from the authors’ work that the group actually had understood and ready to accomplish the objectives of the research. The purpose of this article was the determination of the dynamics of a post traditional marriage set up where the man and the woman had moved past the cultural rules that defined the roles of each member of the marriage, in addition to the children. With the scenario of such a family being a scarce and not yet well defined occurrence in society, the authors were intelligent in first coining a name –postgender marriages- that would encompass their understanding of this evolved family set ups. The precise and distinct definition of the term made it easy to undertake the objectives of the research by the authors. The authors define postgender marriages as family institutions where couples share roles equitably, but more than that, they have decoupled breadwinning from masculinity and nurturing from notions of femininity (p. 24). These are couples who during the allocation of family roles and duties, gender are not used as basis. The purpose of this article was achieved through careful scrutiny of the families that qualified to be called post-gender over a considerable ample time to come up with convincing results.
	The authors or researchers of this project did a very broad literature research to aid in their understanding of the forces that they will have to deal with during the interviews and observations of the sample families. The need to come up with a term to define the couples’s way of life past traditional norms was probably influenced by the previous terms coined by previous researches on the same topic. This was a necessity because the purpose of the article could not be achieved if the group took up either of the previous terms used. For example, peer couples is a term that Schwartz (1994) used in his research but the authors did not its suitability because “peer’ doe not necessary mean the individuals involved are equal in the aspects of their association. This was a clever decision even though the postgender marriage term they coined can also, in the future, be subjected to such objection by another group of researchers because the author/s of an article use words that they perceive would well serve their purpose.
	The used of evidence from over the past three decades is one thing the group can be extremely commended because this offered them the chance to know how to strengthen their research. The authors’ use of insights from past research done by well renowned researchers like Robert Connell and Schwartz, who had done the largest and most ambitious study involving egalitarian couples by then (p. 25), increases the credibility of this article. The use also of various points of view similar to the past research is something that the group benefited after considering such a broad load of literature. I believe that the form of evidence presented by the authors prior to the deciding the methodology to be used in the research was substantial enough for the study.    
	The evidence presented in defining or classifying the 15 couples involved in the research is substantial to the extent of fully justifying the postgender marriage tag issued. The authors’ use of categories to classify the couples when considering a particular facet of the family dynamics helped a lot in the creating a greater understanding of the facts that differentiate this group of couples from the traditional marriages. For example, when classifying the group of couples according to their relationship to each other as defined by their paid work labor, the use of various categories that defined each couple efficiently was a plus. The 15 couples can be well understood when they are grouped into generalized classes that contains the features their relationship stands for. 
	The authors’ use of different interviews for each couple in every family, including when dealing with the children, is a feature of this research that worked to increase its credibility. This helped to prevent any bias behavior in the interviewer’s part since it is common nature as human being for one to have preferences. The separate