I Wish Theyd Do it Right by Jane Doe - Essay Example

From the research it can be comprehended that in the essay “I Wish They’d Do it Right,” Jane Doe articulates about her struggle with her son regarding his cohabitation with his fiancé. She suppresses her thinking on the issue for 7 long years and speaks out when his fiancé has a child. Her son argues that he does not believe in the institution of marriage. Basically it is an argument of modernity versus traditionalism. The mother tries to impress upon her son that cohabitation is not socially acceptable as it does not establish an authentic relationship between his girlfriend and his son.

Her point is how she should address the girlfriend. Her next argument is people opting for cohabitation have economic disadvantages. The absence of marriage document denies them the legal facilities and they are obliged to find costly housing options and are not entitled for the normal health benefits. Happiness of the parents alone is not important. The extended family also has the psychological necessity to share the happiness and will feel the sense of belonging when the marriage is legal.

But the son sticks to his stand and is adamant in not marrying. With the rigid stand of the son, Doe’s family is disappointed and feels disgraced. The combustible younger generation does not understand what their societal responsibility is. Youngsters, who are fascinated with the idea of cohabitation, fail to appreciate what the true importance of marriage is. Marriage is harmony, togetherness, and willingness of the individuals to live under a common roof, though their secular goals may be different.

It is to discover the unity of the souls, through diverse challenges of life. The rigidity of the younger generation, impacted by materialistic values, will lead to unpleasant consequences in the long run. Being a part of the family, one owes responsibility to its psychological well-being and it is the duty of the son not to create a sorry situation for the parents. Jane Doe laments, “Recently, I heard him refer to her as his girlfriend. I cannot believe that that description will be endearing to their son when he is able to understand,” is justified.

The argument that there is a choice to participate in the system other than marriage and that cohabitation is the alternative that has the same underlying purpose, is fallacious. I entirely agree with the author’s opinion that it is unethical to beget children through cohabitation relationship without getting married. One part of the calculative mind of the cohabiting partners looks towards the exit door for the relationship on an ongoing basis. The main issue is about the psychological imbalance.

The stamp of cohabitating parents creates an identity problem for the grandchild. As the child grows up and when it comes to know about the reality of relationship between its father and mother, it will suffer from emotional distress and a sense of insecurity. Cohabitation is the pointer to the inner cowardice of the individuals who have chosen to live together. It gives rise to important issues like social awkwardness, economic disadvantages, emotional health of the grandchild and void in the extended family’s happiness.

Those who live in cohabitation, do so for mostly sexual attraction. They do not care for the emotional bonds which is the true barometer of man-woman relationships. When the first flush of enthusiasm of bodily attraction is over, the relationship turns sour, mutual fights begin and when they take serious turn, the eventual outcome is breakup. How can a system which is politically, economically and socially disadvantageous and dominance of sexual desire takes precedence to the ethical and spiritual standards, can contribute to the peace and happiness of the society?

Cohabitants do not stay together for long. Patricia Morgan argues, “Far from being a mirror-image, cohabitation turns out to be something fundamentally different. Firstly, it is