بررسی کیفی وضعیت زندگی زنان دارای رابطه هم خانگی با جنس مخالف
محورهای موضوعی : فصلنامه زن و جامعه
نادر کریمیان
1
(دانشجوی دکترا دانشگاه فرهنگیان)
اقبال زارعی
2
(دانشیاردانشگاه هرمزگان.)
کلید واژه: هم خانگی, وضعیت زندگی, ازدواج آزمایشی, کیفیت رابطه, نمونه گیری گلوله برفی,
چکیده مقاله :
مقدمه: با توجه به پیدایش شکل های نوین روابط پیش از ازدواج در سالیان اخیر در میان جوانان، این مطالعه با هدف بررسی کیفی وضعیت زندگی زنان دارای رابطه هم خانگی پیش از ازدواج انجام گرفت. روش: در این مطالعه، روش شناسی کیفی به عنوان روش شناسی غالب انتخاب شد. جهت یافتن افراد نمونه از روش نمونه گیری گلوله برفی بهره گرفته شد. پس از یافتن چند نمونه نخست از راه دوستان و آشنایان، همان نمونه ها پس از مصاحبه و فرایند جلب اعتماد، رابط و واسطی شدند برای آشنایی و مصاحبه با نفرات بعدی. برای گردآوری داده ها از 19 زن که دارای رابطه هم خانگی بودند، مصاحبه عمیق و نیمه ساختار یافته انجام گرفت. زنان شرکت کننده بیش‌تر در شهرهای بندرعباس، کرمان و تهران سکونت داشتند. داده های بدست آمده با رویکرد تفسیری تحلیل شدند. یافته ها: بر اساس تفسیرهای انجام شده در مورد داده ها چندین مقوله در زمینه وضعیت زنان هم خانه بدست آمد: رضایت نسبی از رابطه، تعهد متقابل ضعیف، کیفیت پایین رابطه، ترس از قضاوت خانواده و جامعه، آسیب های شخصی، رابطه معامله گونه و نداشتن تصمیم برای ازدواج. بحث و نتیجه گیری: شیوع آرام و خزنده روابط هم خانگی در زندگی جوانان ایرانی، آمار بالای طلاق، وفور خیانت های عاطفی و جنسی افراد متاهل و شیوع سبک های غربی روابط پیش از ازدواج همگی بنیان خانواده ایرانی را نشانه رفته اند و حل این معضلات نیازمند عزم جدی مسئولان و کارشناسان در سطح کلان جهت بازنگری در سیاست گذاری های شغلی، اقتصادی، ازدواج، برنامه های تلویزیونی و حوزه فرهنگ می باشد.
Appearing new forms of relationships before marriage among young people in recent years, the aim of this study was to discover the causes and motivations of people to choose this way of life. The qualitative methodology was selected as the dominant method. Snowball sampling helped to find samples. For data collecting, 23 men and women engaged in a cohabiting were interviewed in semi-structured manner. Results of the interviews were divided into several categories. Major of participants lived in Bandar Abbas, Kerman and Tehran. After analyzing the data with an interpretive approach, 7 main categories were elicited: relative satisfaction with relationship, poor mutual commitment, poor quality of relationship, fear of judgment of family and community, personal injury, transactional relationship and no decision to marriage. The slow and creeping spread of cohabiting relationships, high divorce rates, emotional and sexual infidelity, and the prevalence of Western-style relationships settled before marriage threaten all Iranian families. Solving these problems needs a serious commitment on the macro-level officials and experts to review the employment policy, economy, entrepreneurship, TV programs and cultural policies.
-Ariyo, A. M. (2013). Pre-Marital Cohabitation Factors: Evidence from Nigeria. Psychology and Social Behavior Research, 1(4), 128-136
-Arizi, F., Vahida, F. & Danesh, P. (2007). “Satellite and Gender Identity of Young Girls, High School Girls in Region no. 5 in Tehran”, Iranian Journal of Sociology, vol. 7, No. 2, and p: 76-100. [In Persian].
-Azad Armaki, T., Sharifi, M., Isari, M., Talebi, S. (2011). Patterns of premarital relationships in Iran. Cultural sociology, 2(2), 1-34. [Persian].
-Azad Armaki, T., Sharifi, M., Isari, M., & Talebi, S. (2012). Cohabitation: The new family forms in Iran. Cultural sociology, 3(1), 43-77. [Persian].
-Bourdais, C. L. & Lapierre, A. E. (2004). ‘Changes in Conjugal Life in Canada: Is Cohabitation Progressively Replacing Marriage? Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 66, No. 4.
-Bumpass, L. & Lu, H. (2000). ‘Trends in Cohabitation and Implications for Children’s Family Contexts in the United States’, Population Studies, Vol. 54, No. 1.
-Carr, D. (2011). ‘Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate, and Think about Marriage by Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker’, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 117, No. 3.
-Copen, E. (2013). First Premarital Cohabitation in the United States: 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth. National health statics reports, Number 64, April 4, 2013.
-Edin, K., Kefalas, M. J., & Reed, J. M. (2004). A peek inside the black box: What marriage means for poor unmarried parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 1007–1014.
-French, M, T., Popovici, I., Robins, P., & Homer, J. (2014). Personal traits, cohabitation, and marriage. Social Science Research 45, 184–199.
-Gall, M., Borg, W., & Gall, J. (2014). Educational Research: An Introduction. (Translated by Arizi, M). Tehran: Samt press. [Persian].
-Giddens, A. (2006). Modernity and Self-Identity, Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, Translated by Naser Movafqyan. Tehran: NasherNey. [Persian].
-Goodwin, P.Y., Mosher, W. D. & Chandra, A. (2010). ‘Marriage and Cohabitation in the United States: A Statistical Portrait Based on Cycle 6 (2002) of the National Survey of Family Growth’, Vital and Health Statistics, Series 23, No. 28.
-Hebdige, D. (1979). Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London: Methuen.
-Jackson, A. (2011). Premarital cohabitation as a pathway into marriage. An investigation into how premarital cohabitation is transforming the institution of marriage in Ireland. The submitted thesis for award the PHD of sociology. National University of Ireland, Maynooth.
-Kamp Dush, C.M., Cohan, C., & Amato, P. (2007). The relationships between cohabitation and marital quality and stability: Change across cohorts? Journal of Marriage and Family, 65:539–549.
-Kennedy, S., & Bumpass, L. (2008). Cohabitation and children’s living arrangements: New estimates from the United States. Demographic Research. 19:1663–1692.
-Kline, S. (2005). "Countering Children’s Sedentary Lifestyles: An evaluative study of a media-risk education approach". Childhood; 12; 239.
-Kojima, H. (2010). “Correlates of Cohabitation in East Asia: with special reference to the effects of education.” Jinko Mondai Kekyu [Journal of Population Problems], Vol.66, No.1 pp.17-48.
-Kulu, H. & Boyle, P, J. (2010). Premarital cohabitation and divorce: Support for the “Trial Marriage” Theory? DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, 23, 31, 879-904.
-Metsa-Simola, N., & Martikainen, P. (2014). The effects of marriage and separation on the psychotropic medication use of non-married cohabiters: A register-based longitudinal study. Social Science & Medicine 121 (2014) 10e20
-Nazio, T. (2008). Cohabitation, Family & Society, London: Routledge.
-Olson, H. (1999). The skills of functional marriage and marital communication. (Translated by Boheiraei, A). Tehran: Ravanshenasi and honar press.
-Rostami Tabrizi, L. & Madanipour, A. (2006). Crime and the city: Domestic burglary and the built environment in Tehran, Habitat International Volume 30, 4: 932-44.
-Safaei, M. (2011). Youth and love. Social journal of women psychology. 9, 2, 81-104. [Persian].
-Sakir, O., Aydin, E., Remzi, O., Yasar, T. & Suleyman, G. (2005). Juvenile Delinquency in a Developing Country: A Province Example in Turkey International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 28, 430-441.
-Sedigh Sarvestani, R. (2009). Social Pathology / sociology, social deviance, Tehran publisher An. [Persian]
-Seraj Zadeh, S.H. & Babaee, M. (2010). Globalization, global culture and Cultural deviate. Social Science Journal, No. 48. [Persian]
-Smock, P., Casper, L., & Wyse, J. (2008). “Nonmarital Cohabitation: Current Knowledge and Future Directions for Research.” Research Report 08-648, Population Research Center, University of Michigan
-Soons, J.P., Liebfroer, A.C., & Kalmijn, M. (2009). The long-term consequences of relationship formation for subjective well-being. J. Marriage Fam. 71, 1254e1270
-Stafford L, Kline, S.L., & Dimmick, J. (2004(. Home e-mail: relational maintenance and gratification opportunities. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 43:659—69.
-Stanley, S.M., Rhoades, G., & Markman, J.H. (2008). Sliding Versus Deciding: Inertia and the Premarital. Family relations, 55, 4, 499–509.
-Teachman, J. (2003). Premarital sex, premarital cohabitation, and the risk of subsequent marital dissolution among women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65:444–455.
-Woods L, & Emery R. (2002). The cohabitation effect on divorce: Causation or selection? Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 37, 101–122.
