A lot has been said about the role of the man and woman in a partnership, married or otherwise. The success of the alliance depends on how much effort is put in to make it work. True, in fact very true. Another question that comes to one's mind is who gets to decide the upper limit of such an effort? Parents with their experience can give useful tips but their role ends there. If a mother feels that her daughter should be happy to have a responsible husband who cares and provides for her and the family, so what if he is is a home bird and refuses to socialize, she is perhaps not wrong. But neither is she right. Cooped up in the house, dealing with a sick mother in law and troublesome children it is natural of the daughter to want to go out and meet others of her age. A compromise formula has to be worked out by the couple in question. Others cannot decide for them.
Then the question arises as to whether a socially sanctioned license in the form of a marriage is necessary at all? I, for one feel that when human beings grouped themselves into clans and society, the arrangement of getting married evolved. Polygamy was not frowned upon in the beginning mainly because menfolk were hunter-gatherers and their lives were at risk. So it was customary for married men who stayed behind to marry the young widow and take care of her children. Later this arrangement became a right and was extended to men whose wives did not bear children and later to those who did not bear sons. Kings and monarchs married for political reasons and some religions allowed men to take on several partners through marriage claiming that it was God's will. Hindu mythology has every kind of alliance as example starting from Gandharva vivah and swayamvar to a monogamous Ram to Murugan with two wives and our charming Krishna whose relationship with Gopika is claimed to be platonic and Radha was his childhood friend. Meera's devotion was again on an entirely different level. One has to just go through the Mahabharat to understand how flexible a society existed at the time. Trial and error perhaps resulted in the present arrangement where a monogamous marriage is linked to accountabilty and is therefore a widely accepted practise.
However, with the tolerance level going down and the pain and trauma of a divorce becoming more common, the feasibility of the arrangement is being questioned. Women empowerment has blurred the division of labour that existed 50 years back where women looked after the house and men went out to work. Men are no longer the sole providers and women no longer wish to be tied down to the kitchen. I don't see anything wrong there and I am all praise for the current generation of young parents where both partners take equal responsibilty in running a family. Evolution, whether societal or biological, always comes with a price tag. The survival of the fittest. Whether genes or unicellular organisms like bacteria, plants or animals, nature eliminates anything that is known to have a deletorious effect on the community and the environment. They are never allowed to flourish. In my opinion the trauma of the present times will soon give rise to the best possible arrangement and that in my opinion would be acceptable to all. Anything that is unacceptable will automatically be rejected and eliminated. People like me worry in vain.