On marriage back-up plan...

I can't believe I haven't had the time to jog down my random thoughts for the past month or so. I've saved so many articles and links and collection of thoughts in the browser bookmarks that I don't even want to scroll down the list to see what I want to write, and what to discard as too random a thought.

But here it is, fresh off from today's reading, which should be a good (re)start -

I like reading Sydney Morning Herald because they have more interesting thoughts and columns that the rather bland and generic American and even British main media. (There's an interesting article the other day on The Guardian about spotting psychopath though, but it'll have to wait for another time...)

So then, there's this article today, about marriage back-up plan. Presumably, it's for the young folks that are comfortable with each other enough to enter in informal pact to get married, should they remain single when they get to their 40s. The main motivation is that, these men and women do not want to grow old alone. Presumably too, that they like each other's company enough to commit to a lifelong arrangement two decades later.

I didn't think much of it, on first thought. In retrospect, there's a bit more to it.

I'd imagine, these men and women like each other as companion, but are not madly in love, to the extent that they want to become married in their 20s. The assumption behind it, is that, there are bigger fish to catch; bigger wild parties to roam. Companionship is not high on the list, but certainly at the back of their mind.

One has to ask, is marriage really just that (about companionship)? Is there nothing more to it, but that? Would we value our partners/spouse, if we forever label each other as the back-up option, since nothing else pans out in 20 odd years, tacitly acknowledging that they are both losers in the dating/mating game? Is this (marriage back-up plan) a better arrangement, than the let's-get-married-and-consider-divorce-later deal in the conventional world? Or, is this all borne out of the commitment phobia in the younger generations?

I should be the first to admit, that I would never have considered such a notion. If I'm comfortable with someone enough, and if he's comfortable enough with me, so that we want to spend the rest of our lives together, we should commit. If not for love, it should be for the benefits of the kids (that can quite likely and happily happen); for the ease of financial arrangement. While all of my family is religious, I'm not die-hard religious. But one could argue that, the union of a man and woman would be deemed appropriate, in the eyes of God.

Explicit in the pact, is the worry that people don't want to grow old as old maid (or male). When the libido subsides, the companionship takes on a whole new meaning. Looking back, I don't think this is the motivation for me and my husband to get married. But I have to admit, that it's never too far from the surface, that yearning for a conventional family, a loving husband, happy kids, all of which form great foundation for looking into the future with hope and joy, and not with dread.

One of my sisters is a self-made, self-reliant woman. She's highly educated, got to senior managerial rank in big organization, but yet harbors insecurity, deep down. She's conscious of her age (even when she's just in her 20s!!), the consciousness of which has only grown over the years. She's religious in a conventional Christian/Catholic sense, and has this romantic notion of the role of a woman in a household, that the man should be the head of the household, bring home the bacon, and the woman should just stay home and take care of the kids. She also has this streak to want to be different. She rejects all the eligible suitors in her own race, and chooses a gwei-lo instead. Not that race has anything to do with it, but this gwei-lo turns out to be a pseudo bum (ie. all talks about starting his own business and can never quite get it off the ground; big on spending money when he leaves the money worries to my sister to tend to; never help much with household chores or child-rearing; etc etc). Since this guy didn't have the money, she paid for everything in the wedding, including the wedding dress, and the rings.

After the marriage, she even gave up her promising career to stay home to try to have kids, while pouring her financial resources to help the guy to start his business. The kids turn out to be a handful. The guy's business goes nowhere in 10 years, and s/he still wouldn't give up. And, he's always busy with business stuffs, and lets her deal with the kids, the worries in finances, and the whole nine yards.

I respect my sister and her choice, but it pains me to see her keeping up appearances of one happy family, when it's clear that he's been dragging her along for the ride. The only contribution that he's had is probably the sperms that brought the kids about. And she gets to go out and be the Mrs so-and-so.

Sometimes, in the quiet of night, I wonder out loud, does it really worth it? Does she have any regrets? Was my sister really that desperate to be married, and be seen as married? (Here, I don't even add the kids in the picture, because there are so many single successful career women who acquire sperms or adopt, to become mothers that way. So, his contribution of the sperms are mute.)

These are questions that I can never answer, on my sister's behalf. It all depends on how strong her desires were, at the time, although I'm not sure if I would go through everything that she's gone through, just to become a married woman with a guy.

So, although on first thought, I find the notion of marriage back-up plan to be rather silly, I should not be the first to pass judgment, on second thought. If I can judge it, in my sister's shoes, I should extend that courtesy to others who go down the non-traditional route....