...continued from The Evolution of Marriage 1 of 2

Of course, not all women are elated by the prospect of change. At the other end of the spectrum is Annie, a 32-year old secretary from San Diego. She argues that, in retrospect, our bra-burning predecessors did us few favours. "I feel that we`re placed in a double-bind. Women now have to work, yet their obligations on the homefront exist just as before. You`re condemned by society if you do work - especially if you have young children - but you`re also condemned if you don`t work. Working mums are expected to survive nine-to-five while simultaneously being on call, twenty-four hours a day. It is a predicament that few men have to contemplate. I have had countless opportunities to climb the corporate ladder but, as a woman, I have to be realistic. My children still come first."

Annie`s dilemma is common. Few families are able to survive any more without a dual-income, and many mothers do not have a choice. They are feeling forced to sacrifice valuable family time, and the problem is only exacerbated further when their spouses avoid doing an equal share of the workload. After a long, demanding day at work, many return home to cook a meal, do the laundry and ironing, oversee homework, pay loving attention to their spouses and, finally, collapse in a fatigued heap. Knowing that the same cycle will be repeated all over again the next day.

Notwithstanding a few suggestions to the contrary, however, it seems that there are many new-age Prince Charmings lurking in our midst. Elyse, 26, of North Carolina is happily married to one of them. "My husband supports me as much as possible at home. He helps with the children and is completely capable of looking after himself, often putting my needs before his own. When he`s hungry, he goes into the kitchen and fixes himself a meal. My stepfather, in contrast, will first ask what`s to eat and then wait for service!" Elyse`s partnership is a reflection of society`s changing attitudes towards marriage and children. "We only decided to make it official when the second child was on the way." Previously, the common terminology for `living together` was `living in sin` - an arrangement that was considered disgraceful by even the most lenient. But in the last few years, living together and/or having children out of `wedlock` have become more widely accepted. Sometimes this is even regarded as desirable. Says Elyse: "If you marry for the sake of a child, you`re doing everyone involved a grave injustice. A good relationship exists because you choose to be there, not because you`re forced by circumstances. Our marriage was based on the depth of our commitment, because we were ready to explore forever together."

The tenets of marriage as an institution have been watered down dramatically. "It`s more like a joint venture than an institution," says Gill, who has recently married for a second time. "The commitment extends beyond the confines of a legal document. Women have greater freedom now and far more choices so, naturally, marriage is no longer a case of dependency - financially or emotionally. The foundation of happiness is not obligation, and I think that that is the core difference between marriages of yesteryear and now. Marriage used to be about duties and inflicted roles. A man was expected to protect and support his wife, a wife expected to honour and obey her husband. The slant existed because the one was blatantly dependent on the other. There was no compromise." Gill believes that when a relationship is built on compromise and mutual understanding, rather than rules and responsibility, it is able to exist on a more spiritual plane. "My husband and I are life partners. Equal, but different. We do not need to be bound by laws to acknowledge this fact."

Marriage is not, however, in imminent danger of being abolished completely. In fact, it seems to be diversifying, taking on a variety of new forms. Nothing is more indicative of this trend than society`s increasing tolerance of inter-racial and homosexual marriages. Elyse explains: "It is about much more than a piece of paper. It is about lifelong intimacy, loyalty and friendship." Such universal ideals are shared by all, regardless of race, colour or gender.

Progress is always at a price, however. Despite the numerous advantages of change, Liz Dooley, director of the Family Life Centre in Johannesburg, points out the downside to the revolution. "Technology has popularised the notion of `disposability` - an idea that even filters into the most intimate of human relationships." Life in the fast lane is bound to cause casualties; over 40 000 divorces every year provide sufficient evidence of this phenomenon. Liz maintains that although contemporary couples are entering relationships more educated about their needs and expectations, they also have a distinct awareness of various `escape` options. "Because the boundaries of marriage are not as strictly defined as they once were, people are giving up too easily. When expectations are not met, they immediately search for a `quick-fix` solution." While Liz certainly advocates knowledge, exploration and an awareness of choices within marriage, couples should accept that all things worthwhile require effort.

Life in the nineties is fast, and change the order of the day - as it will be into the next millennium. It is not surprising, therefore, that people are looking to marriage to provide the necessary sanctuary based on mutual respect, friendship and appreciation. Modern marriages are about growing with the changes while still enjoying a comfortable, secure familiarity that cannot be found elsewhere. And marriages do not only evolve with time. Each has its own unique life cycle. As you progress through the various stages, you will probably find that the mark of a sound marriage lies not in how steadfastly you adhere to the rules imposed by society, but rather in your ability to adapt with the times and the circumstances.

Article source: LifeWorld