By JENNIFER BOWMAN
Staff WriterEvery culture forms its own moral guidelines. Social rules and traditions by the majority in a democracy from generation to generation tend to remain in place. As centuries pass, however, hot everything will continue to influence a certain people and yet habit-forming ways are still not put aside. As a nation evolves (I use that word as true as it is, though it may offend some) so will the laws which govern it.
The condescending Americans that we are, we are quick to judge the ideals of other countries. Beliefs forieng to us are flat-out wrong, in our view. Tribalistic traditions are barbaric to us. That�s where the problem begins. We assume ourselves to �high society� that we don�t notice one of our mainstream barbaric ceremonies, that of marriage.
Yes, as said before, our nation have evolved immensely and so should marriage. I don�t attack those who are married or those who are seeking marriage; it�s the rite itself that is outrageous in my mind.
Case scenario: the head of the household, assumed to be the father, gives away his virgin daughter to a bold warrior of the tribe whose family is wealthy. She promises to respect and serve him as he promises to feed and clothe her. In turn, she foresakes everything she ever owned to start her life over with the warrior. She refuses her last name and all of the heritage it represents and takes on the identity of the man to go where he pleases and serve him accordingly.
Tribalistic? Yes. American? Extremely. Biased? Complete understatement.
In 1997 in America the same marital process, however refined, is accepted. A woman, first off, should have to be given away. This is not a matter of giving and taking. Instead, it is a matter of mutual love and respect, both sacred.
In the ceremony that acknowledges this love, the family�s representative in the process of exchange should not exclusively be the bride�s father. Why can only a male walk a bride down the aisle? A mother should be entitled to acknowledge the new bond, just as the father is.
Yet another flaw is the reading of the vows, which should not be any different for the man and woman. Both the man and woman should love, serve and share responsibilities equitably. There should be no division based on gender. The vows to date still exemplify a male-dominate, female-submissive society.
Most importantly, when a woman and man become bonded by marriage, a woman should never feel pressured to give up her last name. That simple yet tragic custom has to be the most degrading and oppressive in the whole ordeal. No one should be expected to deny the existence of every day of their life before the day or marriage. In dropping a name (last name, in this case), the person has done something very public, whether it is understood or not. A woman should not have to leave her family for a man she has known for far less time than she has known her family. Thus, why don�t we look at marriage more as a union of past, present and future � of son and daughter as well as families?
The concept of marriage is a logical one. Monogamy is both natural and rational. Marriage promotes monogamy and long-term commitment. The traditional ceremony needs to be fine-tuned. Reformation is even more incumbent upon us as we reach the 21st century. Much of the opposition will soon be extinct. Change is inevitable.
Jennifer Bowman is a senior at Ben L. Smith. She plans to attend UNCC next fall.
Return to WordSmith homepage.� 1997 [email protected]
Get your own Free Home Page
