Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Why has the institution of marriage lost significance?????

First of all let us analyze why we actually have a question like this. What happened to the eternal or assumed to be eternal institution of marriage? What is going so wrong with this institution, and where are the actual lacunae that are making this age old institution nothing more than an archaic philosophy?
I gave this lot of thought and came to some inferences, I would not call them as conclusions because for such a grave and such a time tested social practice, nothing can conclusively determine its end of life or its virtual extinction in metaphorical sense. What I really have inferred I just wanted to Jot down.

Financial Obligations of Marriage VS Emotional quotient:

It may seem to be a bit absurd but marriage has a direct variance with the financial obligations that it actually brings upon. Marriage, in its traditional sense, is more of a responsibility intake for the masculine counterpart than for the feminine instance. More of the financial responsibilities after marriage are on the shoulders of the male and the female is more of an emotional pillar that binds the family together. This concept, however is very suitable and very amicable in a deflated economy scenario, however an economy where inflation is at 11% or even more, where price rise is now a daily news bulletin, this balance of economic responsibility and emotional load sharing is a bit imbalanced. I don’t mean to hurt the fairer sex by making such a comment, and with due respect to them, it may also be noted that emotionally binding a family takes a lot of guts and courage, which is not a task that a man can do. This essentially is the crux of the problem.

Now because of a huge financial requirement both the husband and the wife have to share the financial obligations in the family. There is nobody called as the bread-earner and the home-maker. Now bread-earning is the portfolio that both the counterparts have to take care of. When such a thing happens there is a kind of void created in the emotional space. This is plainly due to the fact that the person who is actually an expert in filling that void is now sharing the financial responsibility and not able to devote time or energy to fill up the void. Also it would be inhuman for the male counterpart to actually expect her to also discharge her emotional duties even after being a critical element in the bread-earning process. However, in some families this is also happening to a great deal and this puts the women under immense pressure and under the onslaught of unrealistic expectations that need to be fulfilled.

This principle of the woman now being an active part of the financial stability and also the only part of the emotional stability of the family now takes a toll on her, and this destabilizes herself. She now has no time for herself or for her own upliftment. This makes her life miserable, even more miserable than the lives of various women who are actually being sympathized for their miseries that they actually face.

Man can never fulfill the emotional necessities:

By this I may be de-favoring the masculine gender, but somehow it is true. The male side is more logical and less emotive in nature. It is the identity of a man that emotive splurges are a representation of weakness and feeble confidence, which by the way is wrong, but then this is how it is. So it is very difficult and almost impossible for the man to emulate the emotional self that a woman actually carries. You can say that when God created the human being, there was a kind of a reverse psychology God used. I believe while creating human beings God never wanted to create them like animals. So if we see the animal kingdom or the avian architecture, it is basically the male species which is more refined and polished; e.g. a Lion is more of an attraction than the lioness because of the hair, a peacock is more of an attraction than the pea-hen because peacock is more colorful and so on. However, in the case of human beings the male species was the blue-print and the female incumbent was actually the optimized version. So probably, God forgot to put an enhanced hypothalamus in the legacy prototype and this makes the man less emotive and less prone to multi-tasking.
A female brain is always able to think in different ways at different times, and that is probably the reason that men never understand them. However, in case of males, being a more legacy and raw prototype their brains always go in one direction at a time, and this makes them more predictable and less emotional. Combining all these limitations it becomes impossible for the man to actually optimize the professional obligations and the emotional necessities of a family.

So in a marriage where initially the emotional domains were controlled by the female and the financial responsibilities were actually with the male, these imbalances lead to conflicts. This results to a paranoid response, especially from the female side, towards marriage. This is because it is the female side that is more emotionally oppressed after an urban marriage. Marriage for her becomes only a social sanctity for a relationship, which loses its significance as time progresses.

No comments:

Post a Comment