1960, FLACĂRA
In Two, Life Is More Pleasant
Anghel Niculescu, electrician at C.F.R. Grivița Roșie, was good husband material. His parents told him:
— Find yourself, son, a good, smart, and hardworking girl.
— Well, where should I find one?
— Ask your friend Branea, he’ll introduce you to someone.
That’s exactly what happened. A period of timid meetings followed, of furtive caresses and plans for the future. They went through it all, like all young people who love each other and want to unite their destinies.
— How did you get married?
— With papers and with love! replies Anghel.
— When did you start living in a shared household?
— After a year. When the child came.
Anghel and Maria Niculescu have, therefore, two years of marriage, a 1 year and 6 months old daughter, and a life shared between them.
— We get along very well, adds Anghel. We have a rule: each helps the other in everything they do. I help her in the kitchen, with the laundry, cleaning. She helps me in the child’s education, accompanies me when shopping, supports me in all decisions. We’ve been united from the very start.
Anghel is curious. He is waiting for Nea Gică’s course, where he learns about Diesel locomotive defects. At home, he is always looking for little Pipică, who has just turned one year old. He lifts him in his arms and pampers him:
— Daddy’s boy has grown so big!
From time to time, Anghel and Maria go on vacation. Last year they went to Vasile Roaită. All of it has remained in their memory.
— What did you like most?
— The vacation, being together.
— Where are you going this year?
— Maybe somewhere nice, we’ll write you afterwards.
Anghel is accompanied by Maria when shopping. And in turn, he accompanies her to her workplace. He helps her, listens to her, and respects her work.
Silent, musical, but enticing: the snoring and the smell of the food she cooks do not escape Nicu, the worthy husband.
Training on all fronts! This time, the training takes place in the kitchen… Laziness caught by Anghel. She arranges the table with care, he checks the oven temperature. It’s a pleasure to watch them: partners in life and in housekeeping.
In turn, the young wife follows her husband’s advice religiously during training sessions… After all, she is a contender for the title of bowling champion.
__________________
1966, FEMEIA
The Age of Marriage
Talking with Assoc. Prof. Dr. Marcela Pitiș, from the Institute of Endocrinology in Bucharest
— Marriage is a complex issue that deserves to be discussed more. I wonder how many young people actually understand it and whether some do not limit marriage to simply legalizing sexual activity.
Before answering your questions, I would like to discuss some aspects that somewhat trouble today’s youth. The sexual issue is not one of modern times, it has existed forever, and since the world’s populations have been and still are continuously growing, it is probable that better or worse solutions have always been found. Young people’s concerns in this direction are perfectly justified. It is largely a reaction to the wrong education of ignoring the sexual issue, an education that has lasted for hundreds of years. Today’s young people, better informed, want to know in advance all aspects of the reproductive process, and also want fewer constraints from the family, while adults have begun to research the most appropriate methods for this education. The desire for knowledge and early emancipation does not, however, explain the predominantly sexual preoccupations of some young people, especially from countries with an advanced civilization, concerns which have led to a veritable psychosexual pathology.
It is possible that this situation was triggered by the discrepancy between intellectual evolution, which is progressing, and emotional evolution, which is stationary or perhaps regressing, the latter being in part at the base of sexual relations. Of the many aspects, I would mention two: on the one hand, the tendency to eroticize the individual by stimulating sexual desire and reflexes, and on the other, the idyllic tendency — “back to nature.”
Thus, the slogan “sexy” is fashionable, which, according to the American dictionary definition, means the arousal of sexual desire; this arousal has been achieved through all means: literary, artistic — including cinematography, considered the seventh art —, fashion, commercial advertising, etc. If part of the youth in these countries will solve their sexual issues following the above-mentioned slogan, they will probably make the reverse journey toward primitive society, which, imitating the sexual behavior of various animal species, stimulated sexual desire through different auditory, visual, etc. stimuli. “Civilization” has added to these the intellectual stimulation with erotic literature and its wide dissemination through magazines, television, and cinema.
It is evident that in all species sexual maturity is accompanied by the appearance of sexual behavior, this being necessary for the reproduction process. In the past, such behavior was labeled as sexual instinct, a term now outdated, as observations and experimental research have shown that the various sexual behaviors observed in species are induced by the action of sex hormones on the central nervous system. The role of hormones in inducing sexual behavior in higher species is not elucidated. At least in humans, it is assumed that the development of the nervous system, superior compared to other species, has allowed independence from hormonal factors, and man can control his behavior, with intellectual and physical activity allowing him to channel his energy in another direction.
It is indisputable that insufficiently mature young people or those with defects in the maturation of the nervous system are more dependent on the action of sex hormones and environmental stimuli and cannot always control this behavior. The aforementioned eroticization will have a particularly adverse effect on such youth, explaining in part certain psychopathological aspects among the youth in many countries.
As for the “back to nature” movement, in which even young intellectuals have been drawn, it is just as criticizable. Young people should know that relationships between the sexes are multidimensional, according to the complexity of personality: emotional, intellectual, sexual, and cannot be reduced to a single dimension. The return to nature impoverishes the content of these relationships, reducing them to emotional rudiments as in primitive society or to simple sexual relations devoid of affection and reason, similar to those found in animal species.
— What is the most suitable age for marriage and how do you justify it?
— I believe the optimal age cannot be fixed, as it depends on several factors. The most important is the degree of maturity of the young people, which is not always correlated with age or sexual maturity, being also dependent on social and educational factors. It is still preferable for a marriage to be established after the age of 18–20.
From one point of view, today, a girl at 18 is better prepared for marriage than before. She enters society earlier, has wider contact with it, and her experience is greater. All the means of information available to her make her more capable for life and in less need than in the past of family guidance. But this fact does not exclude the role of the family, obviously, when it is able to understand the current issues of the youth and when it has managed to synchronize with the demands of the modern era.
It seems surprising to me that a girl today, who has superior conditions for development, would make mistakes in selecting a partner or look at marriage superficially as a provisional and not a definitive situation.
There are also mistakes made equally by girls and by parents. They confuse the onset of puberty with the age suitable for marriage. Our ancestors did not make such confusions and for the girl fit for marriage there was the term “nubile” (from the Latin word nubere = to wear the veil, to marry). At puberty, a girl may or may not be fit for reproduction, but not necessarily for marriage, which also involves a degree of psychological maturity, which is all the more necessary as girls bear the major responsibility in establishing the family and consolidating the home.
The feeling of love, which must not be confused with eroticism, as well as material independence (respectively the completion of studies) are essential conditions in organizing marital life. Marriages dependent on one or the other of the parents have not always given good results, some parents interfering negatively in the young marriage. Perhaps young married couples should be more supported by the institutions in which they work in organizing their home.
— Are you in favor of sexual relations before marriage?
— Under certain conditions, such a situation for a girl is somewhat embarrassing. It can be justified when there is love, respect, and mutual trust between two young people, and there are obstacles to the legal establishment of the family. But where everything is mere curiosity or a momentary erotic state, sexual relations are not justified, lowering the girl’s dignity, with the danger of frequent partner changes, leading to compromise, moral and social decline. The so-called trial marriages, practiced in some countries, have not given the best results. It is possible that in the future trial marriage will be practiced commonly, but much time will have to pass for today’s youth to have more sense of responsibility to engage in such a form of life. I still believe that traditional marriage is both modern and necessary.
Conversation conducted and recorded
by Gabriela Ionescu
_____________
1967, COLOCVII
Preparing Girls for Family Life
I recently leafed through an “oracle,” one of those notebooks with cloth covers that many of us have kept, with the sincere memory of the impetuous “friendships” from school. On some pages there were questions and answers, sometimes clumsy, but often revealing an affective code, a lyrical definition of love, of adolescent sensitivity, of the mystery and dream about the future.
To the question “Modern or sincere?”, the chosen author replies concisely: “Sincere – what is in the soul, that is also in the word.”
Charming and searching, there is, visibly in the whole group of adolescents, a thirst for meanings, for definitive senses, but also for future projects. For adolescent girls, more attentive to quality in daily life, love and the stability of a union are from the start viewed with different nuances.
Their universe, through the thoughts that envelop love, remains made up of dreaming. But how much realism there is in the sincerity, in the boldness of asking for a stable, secure, peaceful family life!
Family life remains a constant subject of reflection for girls of a young age; they begin early, in adolescence, to observe and compare, they want to reaffirm themselves and seek to exceed the demands of their parents.
In relation to the ideal image of creating a family, less visible in adolescent boys, girls study it with special attention. In most families, girls contribute effectively to household chores, being closer to the reality of everyday life than their brothers.
During their affective life, which unfolds in adolescence, girls are more involved in the emotional and responsible side of the relationship. Preparation for family life is a process that involves not only biological maturation but also emotional and psychological maturation.
From a young age, girls dream much more about their future as wives and mothers. Their imagination is nurtured by countless models offered by family, school, and mass media. In a society that desires a strong family, these early reflections play an important role in character formation.
At puberty, girls naturally feel closer to their parents, already fulfilling household tasks and participating in daily life with responsibility. They are, in most cases, the ones who begin to care for younger siblings, cook, tidy the house, preparing themselves for the maternal role.
— “At school I learned to cook, to sew, to wash…” — says one of them with pride.
This is not just a simple skill, but a form of assuming the future. Girls realistically relate to what family life means and tend to see marriage not only as a romantic relationship, but as a partnership of work and mutual support.
In an era in which more and more women are called to work outside the home, the balance between profession and family becomes an essential theme. Girls are taught to understand the value of work, but also to respect domestic responsibilities.
Family-oriented education does not exclude professional aspirations. On the contrary, it means forming conscious, balanced women who know how to combine affection with realism, devotion with the power to decide.
It is important to emphasize that preparation for family life is not just a sum of practical skills, but a complex process that involves character formation, disciplining emotions, and moral responsibility.
Girls must be encouraged to express their aspirations, to think independently, but also to understand their social and personal role within family life. This dual awareness — of self and of others — is essential for the balance of the home.
Galina BĂDULESCU
__________________
1968, APOSTOLATUL EDUCAȚIEI
What Is New in Family Life in the Countryside?
On the Bistra Valley, between Caransebeș and Oțelul Roșu, 15 km from the first locality and 3 km from the second, lies the village of Glimboca. Near today’s hearth of the village, one can still see the traces of the ancient settlement, and that place is called “The Old Village,” mentioned in historical sources as far back as 1500. The remains of the Roman road, still visible near the village, indicate a region with a millennia-old tradition.
Very chic, the women still dance in their traditional costume, seemingly untouched by time. I even caught them in my childhood, wearing their hair in a delicate manner, carefully groomed, washed, and combed. I have seen, after the most beautiful weddings held according to strict traditions, a captivating folkloric richness of unparalleled beauty.
Ethnologists who have written about the world of traditions watch over the betrothal customs, sometimes maintained for months to establish the girl’s dowry. The old village women call the betrothal “căpărat.” “Căpărat” is also the name for “arvuna,” meaning the sum of money you give “in advance, before you actually buy something.” The word “căpărat” has remained to this day to designate that solemn and domestic moment that serves as a promise of marriage.
For almost two decades, the “căpărat” was also made for a simple outing with the girl’s parents, and later the dowry was bound by local customs, with neither livestock nor tools being omitted. It now holds a new significance: the dowry — as a preceding value, both beautiful, youthful, and patriarchal.
The phrase: “She should be beautiful, honest, and patriarchal” — this is the expression you hear today in Glimboca when relatives and future godparents discuss the founding of a new marriage.
Conducting a social survey on the topic of family life in the village, I recorded a series of the most interesting opinions. I began with teacher S. Gheorghe, who is also the secretary of the P.C.R. organization in Glimboca and the author of a monographic work on the village. The monograph is a volume of nearly 200 typed pages and constitutes his work for the grade II teacher’s exam. He is a deep connoisseur of the village where he has worked for many years and to which he has grown attached as if it were his own birthplace. Here is what he stated:
“The dowry, in the sense of a unique and non-negotiable material base necessary for founding a new marriage, has disappeared. The land, livestock, and farming tools once so imperatively necessary to the rural family life have gradually ceased to be capital in the cooperative world of a new beginning for two young people.”
Also very chic are the girls of Glimboca, dressed in fashion, leaving the cinema at a brisk pace, their hair pinned with shiny clips. I heard them say: “We’re all fashionable, but I want to be first in learning, in work, and in industriousness.”
Toloșci said that the dowry has the meaning of tradition: the old betrothal property, sometimes carried on for months to set the girl’s dowry, and in the Banat dialect the betrothal is called “cápărat.” “Cápărat” is also the name for “arvuna,” that is, earnest money you give in advance as a guarantee when buying something. The word “cápărat” has remained today to designate that trust in people which, once given, is never taken back. It is the expression of a form of respect.
Over the years, the material dowry has been replaced by the moral dowry: “she should be hardworking, God-fearing, know how to keep her husband and home, and be modest before others” — these are today’s requirements.
I spoke to a young man: “That’s true, but I also like a pretty girl…” he says sincerely. “Pretty, but she must be hardworking, well-behaved, and know how to do everything!”
Unlike other villages in the region, here there is a noticeable positive influence of organized work, education, reading, and women’s participation in social life. I went to the Cultural Center: on stage — a mixed choir. Conductor — a young woman. In the audience: parents and children, young and old. Poetry is being read. Songs are sung. On guitar — a young woman.
I asked: “And the boys?” The answer: “The boys are in the dance troupe, but not all of them could come.” A celebration is being prepared. On the way out, a little girl hands out flowers. A paper flower made by her own hand.
At the kindergarten, children sing in chorus: “My mother is hardworking and kind…” Indeed, children know positive family models. Education in the spirit of mutual respect begins early.
I attended a wedding. A rural wedding, but with many new elements: white dress, mixed dances, modern music. But also tradition: the wedding bread, folk dances, the calling of the godparents.
I asked a young man: “How do you see marriage?” Answer: “As something serious. You have to know what you want, with whom you want it, and to build your life.”
In the village of Glimboca, in Caraș-Severin county, reality has changed. There is no more dowry, but there is trust, affection, and responsibility. Here a new family life is being built, with a solid foundation and its pastoral meaning having completely disappeared from our village in recent years. Last year, I was able to note in my capacity as a teacher that, out of 48 graduates of the 8-year general school, 42 left for cities to continue their studies in vocational, technical, and specialized high schools. In 1926, only 3 men from Glimboca were employed as workers at the former Ferdinand factories (Oțelul Roșu). Today, over 3,000 people from Glimboca work there, and only one is in education. At present, we have many teenagers attending city schools for high school and university studies. Under these circumstances, in the agricultural production cooperative in the village, more women than men work. Often they have also thought about and decided to continue their studies in art schools, but they will head toward professions considered more suitable for women: primary school teachers, secondary school teachers, mid-level healthcare workers, and toward social and technical-financial fields such as accounting. All these young people think in other moral and daily life coordinates, which are most clearly reflected in fashion, but also in tastes, needs, and concerns related to broadening cultural horizons and the inescapable advance of civilization.
Professor G. Bistreanu from the 8-year general school in Glimboca told us:
— I am originally from the village of Marga, also on the Bistra Valley. One of my great passions is folklore. I have noticed that, as far as wedding folklore is concerned, it is still preserved almost intact despite the process of uprooting the village. I don’t know if it will ever disappear, but if it did, I would regret it not only from a legitimate nostalgic sentiment, but also out of admiration for the encounter with customs of profound aesthetic and historical value. I repeat, however, that even today the weddings in Glimboca (even when it’s about the young intellectuals of the village) are held with the ancient solemnity that turns the wedding into a spectacle of high ethical and artistic virtues, an occasion to affirm the best traditions tied to founding a new home. There is no wedding in the village at which, at the emotional moment when the bride’s “conclu” (married woman’s hairstyle) is put on, they do not sing like this:
Bride, say goodbye
To your father, to your mother,
To your brothers, to your sisters,
To the garden with flowers…
Even today, the same forms of young marriage remain: either the young man enters as “son-in-law into the house” or the girl enters as “daughter-in-law into the house.” But this is no longer tied to a dowry, but to the necessity of having a home as the seat of the young couple’s life. Once there was the dowry — it was available. They used to say:
“Clean and proper son-in-law and sturdy lad
Without a dowry is of no use and a shame!”
The saying reveals a remark often dishonoring to girls who entered a house without a dowry, calling them objects of reproach. Today, the boy says: “Today a son-in-law in the house is someone who has done his military service, has a trade, and a job.” In the same household, within the household, the family desires nothing more than for the son to cooperate in work, have a salary, a secure job, and to find a girl who can be his wife and mother of his future children. Until last year, 3–4 peasant families had no children. Last year, 32 pregnant women were recorded. The small child is no longer “the worker of tomorrow,” but “the cure” and “the reward” of birth, the true pride.
— I am from the mountains. In our place, the boy was considered a man when he slept in the attic, in the young man’s corner, from the age of 13–14. Many girls didn’t know men until after the wedding. In our place, in Oțelul Roșu, it’s the opposite: boys have learned family etiquette, take baths, brush their teeth, and know what good manners are.
Continuing the survey, I visited the family of the old man N. Murariu. He is retired. For over 30 years he worked in Oțelul Roșu, being a “cupotoraj” at the preheating furnaces for steel at the profile rolling mills. Very interesting was his account of his own marriage.
— At the age of 15 I was orphaned. My father died on the front, in Bohemia: at Icin, in 1915. That’s where he was buried. Two years later, in 1917, my mother also died. In 1917 my brother also passed away. I was left alone in the world. I was 17 years old and decided to get married. In 1926 I became a worker at the factory. At that time I was an apprentice in the steelworks. From Glimboca I would come and work in Oțelul Roșu. Since 1958 I’ve been retired. My pension is 997 lei. My son, aged 46, also works in Oțelul Roșu, also in the steelworks. My daughter-in-law, who is our “daughter-in-law in the house,” also works at the C.A.P. They have an 8-year-old girl.
I asked the daughter-in-law: “Who runs the house?” Asked, Paulina replies without hesitation, with restraint and gravity: “The house is run by the good one (the elder) and I in the kindergarten”; “We run the house in the best understanding. How do we run it? In the best understanding, because the incomes are secure and the decisions we make are necessary and we put them all to good use. Our daughter-in-law? We can’t separate Floarea from our child anymore. She can say that we even built her a house worth 23 thousand, and we’re no longer quarrelling. The house, meaning the family, is the most sacred thing in our lives.”
Exploring the interior of the house and the large special well, I found the warmth that emanates from numerous signs of care, in the television, modern linoleum, modern kitchen furniture, in the rest of the rooms, in the modern porcelain dishes and in the kitchen, the paved yard with two wide concrete alleys, but also with fruit trees and a series of wonderful flowers in the garden. In front of the house, Paulina goes to the kindergarten, has her own room, with a stove, television. This small kindergarten, located on the main street of the village, belongs to the Val Vireț team and is in Glimboca. It was even visited by “Moș Gerilă” (a neighbor — dressed in a sheepskin coat, with an enormous cotton beard) who brought a very full Christmas tree “for the room’s ceremony.” Her childhood is essentially no different from that of a city child.
Asked what she will do when she grows up, she answers paradoxically: “When I’m like ‘Grandma’ (grandmother) I’ll become a doctor.” However, in the house, on the veranda-corridor, you discover the old and famous dowry chest of the grandmother, and opening the lid, you see, in a telling example of style, the flowered skirts and aprons that no one wears anymore. You understand that from the veranda the dowry chest will soon end up under the shed as a chicken coop, or the chests from old customs will have gradually disappeared…
And yet in the village of Glimboca (once famous for its peasant tradition troupes) there are currently two young families from the first conjugal conception. As everyone interviewed reports, the conclusion is that weddings are on the decline. Even the girls say that in the village no unmarried young woman lives separately outside the conjugal principle, because in public opinion unmarried girls are considered “unsuitable.” Let us stop for a moment at just those 35 young men who left for the army. Until recently, they had to leave their home and the rented house in the city to live alone or with other young people. Many have chosen to start a family. Today, 60 young people from Glimboca are gone into the world with two children: always. Our man works as a collector of electricity subscription fees. He got involved with another unmarried woman. She left her house with two children, coming into my husband’s house.
We had a trial in Timișoara. The court decided that my husband could not divorce.
In full thought, with the world crying with grief, our child’s letter was read, saying about his father: “That (the divorce) should have been done before I was born, not now, when we should be enjoying the warmth and love of our parents.” Although I formally remain his wife, my husband has brought another woman into the house, one who will not take him as a husband to raise her. I had heard rumors that my husband was living with that woman, as a neighbor in our house, I was lost and did not believe it. And he would say: “Look at what people are saying, why do you believe it? I am honest and I have no fault. You laugh and say: oh, I was wrong… what do you think? These are just words.” Then on Thursday I caught them together and I was left…
I thought I should also talk to the woman’s husband. He told me: “I needed a house, there was zinc, there was my mother. I couldn’t stay anymore, and we stayed together. I couldn’t bear it anymore and I went to the mayor.”
— Well, I asked him, but now you live comfortably with her, confident. That’s proof that she also accepted the relationship with her.
— Once you said there’s proof? Then what more proof do you have?
— But the divorce has not been granted. The marriage has not been legally dissolved…
— The man has no more argument and answers me vaguely, questioningly: “Well, what are you, sir?”
Professor P. Gavrilă, speaking to me about the two cases of cohabitation, makes these observations:
— Cohabitation is, without a doubt, a negative influence of the city’s proximity. Many times people take from city life and morals what is harmful.
In the countryside, in our village of Glimboca, the family has, through a long tradition, the strict and unsettling character of a pure life, of a philosophy of perfect moral integrity. Not just since yesterday or today, the dishonest wife is put to public shame. Not just since yesterday or today, the frivolous man is mocked and pointed at. Precisely for this reason, although we have in the village only two cases of cohabitation, their presence in our collective life awakens so much distrust and contempt among all families.
We, the thirteen teaching staff in the village, periodically organize moral and educational lessons; they seek to anchor themselves firmly in the organization of lively, animated debates on a problem raised by the community. And what attracts public opinion is that it has often been said, in the midst of a circle of elderly people in the village, who also knew it and responded with an expression of gratitude and joy: “Thank you for educating us.” When they sit — on holidays — in their home with their wife, grandmother, grandfather, they say: “You have taught us to understand each other and to work with understanding and love.”
It should not surprise us that these people are 80 years old. Are these old people not the wise ones with the wisdom of millennia of culture, for today’s youth? Is their life experience not used? What a pity that, in observing their lives, in their wisdom, they could offer the occasion for profound lessons of family and social ethics.
PAVEL VASILESCU
________________
1972, ALMANAHUL PĂRINȚILOR
Students About Marriage
Survey conducted by Viorica Gavrilă and Geta Popescu
The survey we conducted among Bucharest students from the University, Polytechnic Institute, and Pedagogical Institute aimed to find out the opinion of these young people regarding marriage. We addressed a number of 150 unmarried students and 75 married students, aged between 20 and 30, to whom we asked a few questions:
Here are the questions addressed to the unmarried ones:
What is the most suitable age for marriage?
Is it good to get married during student years? Yes (justify); No (justify).
How would you like your future husband (future wife) to be?
What can be the maximum age difference between spouses?
Do you want to take into account the advice of parents, teachers, acquaintances, in choosing your spouse?
For married students, we stopped at a single question:
– What do you think? Being married during your student years, do you consider you did the right thing or not? Justify your answer.
Below we present the extracted answers, chosen by average percentage and numerical count, as we received them from the students:
The answers to the first question (the suitable age for marriage) were given by more than 90 young people; the remaining 40 did not indicate a specific number. They stated: “I don’t think there is a certain age”; “I consider marriage the crowning of the love between two young people, so I will marry when I fall in love”; “The ideal age for a happy marriage is when the young people fulfill their ideals both materially and emotionally, so a specific age cannot be set”; “I don’t think it is an obligation of marriage to ensure the existence and well-being of the family, since in some cases it can be an obstacle to achieving this goal”; “It is preferable to have a certain age”; “You marry when you are convinced you love your chosen one and you can sustain a marriage.”
The answers to the second question were given as follows: out of 150 students, 80 answered affirmatively, 35 said “no,” and another 35 gave evasive answers.
To the question of whether it is good or not to marry during student years, 55 students answered negatively, 57 said affirmatively, and 38 were evasive.
Among those who answered negatively, most declared: “Studies take up a lot of time, and during student years there are no material means”; “Household problems are sometimes difficult and appear in the life of spouses before they can face them”; “In my opinion, marriage during student years causes losses in what you could do and especially in what you cannot do then but would definitely want to.”
Of the 75 married students who were asked whether they did well or not by getting married, 43 answered affirmatively, 17 negatively, and 15 gave an evasive answer.
Among the affirmative answers, we indicate some of the most interesting: “Bringing together two young people who love each other, marriage can increase their work capacity, they can help each other”; “If you know well the person who will be your life partner, yes.”
Unfortunately, we also know students who regret getting married; regrets come from those who did not look at this issue seriously and married before they had overcome the immature chatter and before they had truly gotten to know their partner, thus not knowing how to choose and understand their life companion. These can be a sad example for others, and we present it as such: “I was in love with her,” says a data collector, “and we got married. I know that the reasons some students regret marriage are also these: ‘He cannot get along with his wife’; ‘He did not know her well enough. Some love their wife but not the home’; ‘It was a moment when they felt they loved each other and took the step, only to realize too late all the obstacles, even from the moment of marriage’; ‘I lived beautiful moments before marriage, but my wife ruined them with bad thoughts, devoid of affection. She gives me no trust. I have lost both love and friendship’; ‘The girl had a passion, not love, and did not see that mine was sincere.’”
To the question: How would you like your future husband (wife) to be? The appreciated qualities are: “To be honest”; “To be sincere, hardworking, and temperate”; “To be tolerant”; “To have confidence in himself and in me”; “To be serious, with a noble soul, modest, understanding, an intelligent man, and above all patient”; “To be candid, a wife with whom I can walk side by side for a lifetime, not to lie and not to pretend”; “A calm woman who makes me feel good”; “A loving and serious wife.”
To the question regarding the age difference between spouses, opinions were similar. 137 students consider that a maximum difference of 10 years constitutes age compatibility. 3 consider it to be 5 years, and 1 does not marry easily.
To the question of whether they will take into account the advice of others, 136 answered affirmatively, 12 negatively, and 2 did not give any answer.
They claim: “It is good to take into account the opinion of parents, teachers, acquaintances, because they have gone through a lot and generally want young people to succeed in marriage”; “The elderly have experience and can give you good advice”; “We must also take into account the opinions of true friends, who know us and wish us well”; “I have learned not to refuse good advice, and if someone else has another point of view, I will discuss it until we reach a common conclusion.”
These answers confirm the maturity of young people’s thinking and the fact that the issue of marriage is viewed by them with all seriousness, with full responsibility and awareness of what a strong bond means. From this survey emerges a balanced, conscious attitude toward such an important issue as marriage.
_____________________
1977, ALMANAHUL PĂRINȚILOR
A Survey on Family Issues
The family – the basic cell of our society, the moral and material unit of spouses, parents, and children!
Daily life puts us in contact with hundreds and hundreds of united families, bound together, who fully, normally, without ostentation, fulfill their social, human, moral, cultural, and educational role. Parents and children, bound by strong feelings, go beautifully through life, without turmoil, without stumbling. Generations succeed one another, perpetuating life and the millennia-old traditions of our people on this land.
For you, the readers of our almanac, we conducted a survey; we asked several questions regarding family life, also to some of our readers. Here are the answers:
Blăuță Elena, housewife, grandmother:
“My children have gone, and my whole life has been my marriage. I respected my husband, took care of my home and children, without complaining, without dividing myself. Today, as a grandmother, I say big words, but I think this is how it should be, to love your family, to respect it.”
Șerban Vasile, engineer:
“I have been married for 23 years. I have two children, a daughter of 18 and a son of 22. All my moments of joy I have lived in the family, for the family. With my children I have been close and understanding, but when necessary, strict and demanding. This is how I learned from my parents, this is what I wish for my children, and I believe I am not wrong.”
Stroe Justina, teacher:
“Does the influence of the family on the student show? Of course. Students who come from united families, with a normal life, where parents take care of them, behave well in school, are respectful, they learn. Where parents argue, where family life is nonexistent, where there is no care for the children, they show inappropriate behavior, are rude, uncontrolled, and often serve as negative examples for other children. No matter how hard the school tries, the decisive factor in a child’s education is the family.”
Corbeanu Constantin, technician:
“The role of the woman in the family? A question easy to answer: the woman is the very soul and warmth of the family. She has the task of creating the warm atmosphere, the climate in which the family is truly a family. Household chores, the work that together with the husband (who must take on the heavier, more brute tasks), but the woman – as wife and mother – has the heavy responsibility of maintaining the family’s balance, love for her husband and children. It is a hard role, but with many, very many satisfactions, a role that obliges us men as well.”
Corbeanu Elena – clerk:
“The role of the man in the family? Without reservation I say: the head of the family; he coordinates, takes care of his wife and children. The man has obligations, tasks, duties, just like the woman, but when he is both a good husband and father, he also has the unquestionable right to be respected, loved, and… even listened to.”
Mihai Ilie – C.A.P. member:
“I have grown old next to my wife, meaning we have both grown old. We have great joy that the five children we have are all established in their own homes, that they work honestly, and do not bring us shame.”
Pîrvu Maria – stenographer:
“I believe that a normal, balanced person cannot wish for anything other than a family in which the wife and children understand each other and are happy. I also believe that the only true happiness exists only in family life. When you know you can rely on the person next to you, when your children grow up nicely, I don’t know what more you could want.”
Nicolae Vasile – worker:
“I have eight children and I raised them with difficulty, especially during the war, when my wife was left alone with them. Today, when I see them all, some married and with children, I can say I have fulfilled my duty!”
Mazilu Ion Alexandru – engineer:
“In an irritated world, one should not play the smart one – between spouses – when each understands their role in the family and the role the existing spouse has. Discussions can arise; they must not be conciliatory at all costs. With goodwill, understanding, calm, and patience, you can get over anything. The key is to want it, to care about family life, to love your children, to respect your life partner.”
____________________
1979 – VIITORUL SOCIAL
Proportion of the Population by Marital Status and Age
Table no. 3
Proportion of the unmarried, married, widowed, and divorced population by age (as a % of the total population of the respective age group)
| Age groups | Male Population | Female Population | |||||||
| TOTAL | Unmarried | Married | Widow | Divorced | TOTAL | Unmarried | Married | Widow | |
| 15 yo + | 100,0 | 22,7 | 73,2 | 2,9 | 1,1 | 100,0 | 14,1 | 58,7 | 14,3 |
| 15–19 yo | 100,0 | 97,5 | 2,4 | — | — | 100,0 | 78,4 | 20,9 | 0,2 |
| 20–24 yo | 100,0 | 67,9 | 31,5 | 0,1 | 0,5 | 100,0 | 24,1 | 73,0 | 0,5 |
| 25–29 yo | 100,0 | 21,1 | 77,4 | 0,2 | 1,3 | 100,0 | 7,9 | 88,0 | 0,9 |
| 30–34 yo | 100,0 | 6,7 | 91,5 | 0,2 | 1,6 | 100,0 | 4,9 | 89,9 | 1,5 |
| 35–39 yo | 100,0 | 3,8 | 94,3 | 0,3 | 1,6 | 100,0 | 4,5 | 88,7 | 2,7 |
| 40–44 yo | 100,0 | 2,8 | 95,1 | 0,5 | 1,6 | 100,0 | 4,4 | 85,8 | 5,5 |
| 45–49 yo | 100,0 | 2,7 | 94,8 | 0,9 | 1,6 | 100,0 | 4,3 | 80,3 | 11,2 |
| 50–54 yo | 100,0 | 2,5 | 94,1 | 1,8 | 1,5 | 100,0 | 3,7 | 75,1 | 17,5 |
| 55–59 yo | 100,0 | 2,5 | 92,6 | 3,6 | 1,3 | 100,0 | 3,6 | 69,6 | 23,7 |
| 60–64 yo | 100,0 | 2,3 | 89,8 | 6,8 | 1,1 | 100,0 | 3,6 | 60,4 | 33,5 |
| 65–69 yo | 100,0 | 2,0 | 84,8 | 12,2 | 1,0 | 100,0 | 3,4 | 48,3 | 46,2 |
| 70–74 yo | 100,0 | 1,9 | 77,8 | 19,5 | 0,8 | 100,0 | 3,2 | 33,9 | 61,3 |
| 75 yo and + | 100,0 | 1,7 | 60,7 | 36,9 | 0,6 | 100,0 | 2,6 | 16,5 | 79,6 |
According to the Statistical Yearbook of the Socialist Republic of Romania, 1978
Analytical observations:
Demographics retain two significant figures for the overall characterization of the “propensity for marriage” and of permanent celibacy:
– For men, 77% of those aged 25–29 were married
– For women, 73% of those aged 20–24 were married
– The proportion of those permanently unmarried: 2.7% men, 4.3% women — figures very low on an international scale
Each generation, once reaching marriageable age, changes its marital status relatively quickly, and the proportion of the permanently unmarried remains small.
____________
From Celibacy to Family
MARRIAGE between the legal-administrative act and the legal-natural phenomenon of species perpetuation
Dr. CONSTANTIN COLONAȘ
Dr. FLORIN COLONAȘ
After the Second World War, humanity — especially the decolonized nations — experienced an unprecedented demographic explosion in the history of existence. This phenomenon led to the doubling of the world’s population in less than three decades, raising serious problems of social and economic existence.
In this context, representatively, “The Club of Rome Futurists” — in its studies — “signals” a long-standing current tendency toward uncontrolled development of the world and the need to balance this “disastrous situation” — between developed states and third world countries, making a hypothetical per capita calculation, which would be set at 5–1 in favor of the former, reaching 8–1 in the next 40 years.
Although, to the extent that the neo-colonialist policy will continue — to the detriment of respecting independence and national sovereignty, of maintaining within internal structures hesitation in transferring all the peoples of the world, of forming interdependent economic hubs — the situation will continue to worsen, even with the imposition of a new social neo-colonialism.
It follows naturally that the development of peoples (in all aspects) can fulfill the current state of relative balance — superior in all limits identified as the determining factor of the progress of each people — as comrade Nicolae Ceaușescu said at the World Population Conference in Bucharest, August 1974 — each state has the sovereign right to promote the demographic policy and the measures it considers most suitable, in accordance with national interests, within and outside its own country.
Starting, therefore, from the immutable truth that numerical existence represents one of the most important elements of peoples’ progress, it is appropriate to analyze in their true forms marriage, celibacy, birth rate and mortality rate, as constituent factors forming the basis of this progression of humanity, from all angles — in multiple notions and directions — marriage and the family will be mentioned as the essential nucleus ensuring harmonious and continuous development, demographic and social balance of socialism, in accordance with the interests of the state and of the Romanian people.
Celibacy — a retrograde concept, condemned at all times
The breakup of families, as well as preventing their formation, constitutes an act of the dominant bourgeois policy — with a negative meaning — on the element of individual life, whatever the “scientific” or “social” motivation may be. Thus we have reached the current state of humanity, in which, although the birth rate is declining in the industrialized world, mortality is also low, which results in high growth rates, and on the other hand, in the third world, especially among the “independent” — but “unassisted.”
Within these aspects, it should be noted that in the West, especially in Western European countries, celibacy is elevated to the rank of virtue, or even of social “progress,” with a strong influence on young people, their concepts and ideals. Celibacy is therefore a typical product of the moral crisis and the disdain for the ethical values of a creative existence.
Rousseau stated that celibacy is “unnatural,” and Kant considered that “it is a shame not to be married.” It is noteworthy that our legislation, taking over the traditions and morals of the Romanian people, has adopted a firm position on this matter, combating, even through coercive means, the tendencies to avoid marriage and discouraging indifference and carelessness toward this issue.
Such social manifestations are not new in human history. Even in antiquity, they were criticized and even combated through various forms of expression. It is significant that Roman law, for example, provided sanctions against those who refused marriage, considering that refusing to start a family is an antisocial attitude and a form of disinterest toward the values of the community.
In support of these ideas, one can also cite the opinion of the great Greek philosopher Plato, who considered that “unmarried men should pay double tax and be deprived of certain civil rights.”
“Shameless people”
The great philosopher of antiquity, Plato, described as mistaken and shameful those young men who refuse marriage. He stated that people who tend to live in celibacy “are devoid of shame and moral hygiene,” a “grave impiety.” These wise men agreed that simply refusing marriage — expressing their bitterness and reconciling themselves — ex post — with the uselessness of a solitary life, without family and without prospects, is wrong. In this sense, it should be noted that there is no happiness without marriage. Marriage is that state which can ensure inner balance, create the conditions for a harmonious life, with emotional equilibrium and with prospects for the future. In the absence of marriage, there arises selfishness, egocentrism, and the feeling of life’s uselessness.
In our country — in our Glimboca, as we say — traditions are purer, the will of the people to join forces with fate and to ensure their collective victory is deep and active. There is no Romanian village in which, in a year, there are not weddings, strong and wise marital bonds.
It can be stated with certainty that the Romanian village has always been the cradle of stability, of work, of love, and of family order. In the village, the most beautiful customs related to engagement, weddings, the uniting of families, and the devotion of parents to their children are preserved.
Why do we marry?
In his book The Psychology of Marriage, Honoré de Balzac, often quoted in Glimboca, wrote: “Why do we marry? Because we feel the need for support, for help, for status, for support and love.”
Another Romanian writer said: “If you don’t have someone beside you, who will bring you water from the well?” This saying, so simple yet so profound, defines marriage as a necessity, as a fundamental human value, as an essential experience. In the face of life, in the face of sorrows and joys, in the face of hopes and trials, a person needs someone to be close to them, to understand and help them, to comfort and strengthen them.
Marriage is, therefore, a form of human fulfillment. Through it, a person fulfills themselves as a social being, develops emotionally, spiritually, and morally. The family is the framework in which a person learns to be human, to love, to respect, to give.
Marriage is not a simple administrative formality, but an act of faith, commitment, and devotion. It is the covenant of a shared life, the assumption of a common destiny, and the trust that, together, the two will be able to face life’s hardships and enjoy its beauties.
Only within the family can a person truly feel protected, understood, and loved. Here altruism is learned, here the sense of responsibility develops, here the true joy of giving is born.
In conclusion, marriage is not only a social obligation but above all a human necessity, a way to fulfill the ideals of the soul and to give meaning to life. It is a form of accomplishment, of balance, and of personal fulfillment.
In marriage, people find the mutual support, understanding, and affection they need to face life with dignity and courage.
In the family, a person truly becomes human, for only here do they learn to love, to forgive, to give themselves. Marriage is, therefore, the key to a fulfilled life, the mystery of lasting happiness, the temple in which the profound meaning of life is embodied: that of love and self-giving, of understanding and sacrifice.
1980, PARENTS’ ALMANAC
A few brides who have fully tasted the bitter taste of uprooting
In the sleeping car that carries us to Vienna, on the fateful intercontinental railway network, from whose west we always receive this temptation of a “free world,” the carriage attendants would come late in the evening and ask us to lock our doors well, not to open to anyone, even if they would recommend themselves with an authoritative voice: “Polizei!”
— “Did you mention marriage?” The question still echoes in my mind, uttered in a strained tone by a woman of about 30, brunette, blue-eyed, with a glint of harsh bitterness, when she learned I was going abroad to gather some testimonies on the topic of mixed marriages.
She had been a typist at a company in Cluj and set out accompanied by a friend, who kept fumbling with her documents to show them at the border. She did not.
— “I’m returning to my husband, in Germany. I would have liked to stay for good. But I couldn’t adapt…”
Used to a modest life, with well-defined work, with the memories of a mechanic father and with the modesty of the exhausting routine days — but especially her Italian surname, which would not recommend her to a decent firm or agency — she gave in.
— “He wooed me with flowers and manners, with serenades and discussions about literature. I divorced. After a few years, I realized I was living like a slave, in the middle of the concrete forest, among shop windows, in the day-long rush. He worked at a private firm and had no time for feelings. His friends — beer drinkers and card players. I, in the waiting for my two children, left with a grandmother.”
That’s how I found out that they, those “brides” of occasion — or perhaps of destiny — lived a slow path of uprooting, without being able to convincingly announce their fulfillment.
Becoming cleaning ladies, babysitters (in the happiest case), without legal employment — marriage did not always mean the right to work — they revolved around their husband’s wallet, avoided direct answers, lived with the nostalgia of a Romanian past of blood, roots, feelings.
A girl who had been a librarian here, a Philology graduate, told me, between two bowls of soup, about the shock she felt in a “sham” marriage in Italy, with a Calabrian. She had changed her religion — willingly or unwillingly — but could not get past the hostility of his family.
— “He started to beat me!”
I asked:
— “Would you have accepted a relationship without marriage?”
— “Maybe. In Romania, no. But there, where you are a foreigner, you no longer know what is right and what is wrong. I chose what seemed more stable.”
An Italian from the south takes a woman from Romania as property. He doesn’t care what you think, what you feel.
Having become “foreigners in service,” washing helpless elderly people and doing the shopping at the pace of a double workday, they understood, perhaps too late, the drama of giving in.
In the northern area, the conditions are different.
There, mixed marriages mean more balanced partnerships, and Romanian women find comfort in emotional security. But even there, some of them remain foreign women.
About such stories, it was hard for Marga L. to speak.
— “Why did you take the step?”
— “I was tempted by ‘freedom.’ By having my own home, my own money, my own time.”
She had learned about love, fidelity, and romance from books. One day, she decided to leave.
— “My folks didn’t know, they were against it.”
She was already engaged to a young doctor from here.
— “I told myself: either now, or never.”
Marga L. — a grown woman, who lived her love on her own skin; the painful experience of an unfulfilled marriage, without children, without dreams.
And no, she does not say, as some do: “Maybe he didn’t love me.”
She knows.
She was a luxury toy in an apartment full of mirrors, in which other women were reflected, on other evenings.
I wanted to understand why she didn’t tell anyone she wasn’t coming back.
— “Because I didn’t even leave with the conviction that I would stay there.”
Some of them — even today — lie to themselves: “I have a family, I have everything I need…”
Marga L. does not lie about her past.
She knows it was a high price, the bitter taste of uprooting.
A pain that settled in her soul like a guilt.
Marga L. does not complain.
She wonders how she could have lived such a nightmare.
And she admits she would never repeat the experience.
— “Along with him, I lost both my root and my purpose.”
She tried to reintegrate into the country, to rebuild her life.
But…
— “It’s not easy. A failed marriage is a heavy shadow for a woman.”
Sanda Faur understood that Bride L.’s thoughts were not thoughts for a report, but rather a form of bitter yet liberating confession.
And she also knows that love is never a luxury.
__________________
1981, WOMAN MAGAZINE
FROM FAMILY LEGISLATION THROUGHOUT THE CENTURIES
The family appeared along with the transition to patriarchy. During the period of matriarchy, among family members there were no consecrated kinship relations beyond mother–child, brother–sister, and the paternity of children was not known. ● Relations between man and woman took place in a licentious framework, without any kind of restrictions or norms, and children enjoyed some male protection — not exactly paternal. ● The woman was regarded by the male as possessing supernatural divine qualities, because, in primitive ignorance, the mechanism of maternal paternity was not understood. ● As society progressed, with the increasing role of the man in procuring food and in the accumulation of goods, and once he finally realized that he was the one who impregnated the child, thus having a role in procreation, he considered himself a promoter of life and began to claim the prerogatives of master. As head of his community, the family took over the exercise of political power, male power under various forms, up to the slave state. In fact, the idea of the family was borrowed from the tribal commune and from the Roman gens. ● In slavery, the family lost a number of its traits but was maintained as a strong legal unit under the authority of the man — head of the family, who had control over his wife, children, and slaves, all under his authority. In Roman law, the head of the family was designated with the term pater familias, and the son, even after starting his own family, could not leave the authority of the parent except through a solemn act of emancipation. ● In Roman law, all family members were equal before the law but unequal before the head of the family. He had the right of life and death over family members, and all property belonged entirely to him. The wife was subject to the husband in the same measure that the child was subject to the father. The man was pater familias, and the woman had no legal rights. ● Among the Greeks, the legal situation of the family was dominated by the same rules. Those who left humanity an inestimable legacy in the field of culture and science created a completely retrograde situation for women. She could not call her husband by name but addressed him as “master,” she could not sit at the table with him and was obliged to remain isolated, even guarded by dogs or eunuchs. ● On the other hand, men, although they practiced monogamous marriage, allowed themselves any liberty, as in ancient Hellas there was built the so-called key-society — a true network of prostitutes — who had created a position much more emancipated than that of wives. ● As for marriage, both in Roman law and in the law of other peoples, it was regulated in a special form: initially directly by the parents of those involved. ● The future spouses recognized each other as future spouses only after the consent of the parents, with the father’s precedence. ● The age of marriage was established differently from one era to another and from one people to another. The Romans set it at 12 years for girls and 14 years for boys, while the Sabinian school determined it even at 9 years, after a physical examination. Among the Germanic peoples, marriage often took place, for patrimonial purposes, between a child and a nubile girl and especially between little girls and adults, at the initiative of elderly marital oppressors who took advantage of the advanced age of the wife. ● The degrading situation of marriage is also illustrated by the practice of dowry or other forms of payment among various peoples. Thus, among the Chinese, the man paid the mother-in-law a price for the wife and a “bill of sale” was drawn up. In certain cases, the future wife was taken to the future husband’s house, and her favors did not begin until after the consummation of the first or first three nights after marriage. ● In the Netherlands, there was the custom that the man would offer his wife or daughter at night to his guest. ● If the man could almost everywhere and without restrictions afford infidelities, the wife was punished in case of adultery: with death among the Romans, and among the Germans with expulsion from the house, sometimes completely naked. ● The inequality of women in the family was maintained for centuries, from the Code of Hammurabi to the Napoleonic French Civil Code, in which the wife was considered as a child, and because of this harmful status, the man became the woman’s superior master. The woman was considered an irresponsible person, alongside children and the insane, unable to manage either her personal or public property. The husband had this power, and if the wife committed adultery, he could kill or beat her. The wife could not sue her husband for violence, as the man was not legally liable in such cases. ● Although heavily wounded by numerous limits or prohibitions, the family continued to exist and even to give an affirmative creed to its idea. ● Menander, a writer of ancient Greece, said: “The woman is the wife, and polygamy, under the pretext of fertility, must not replace her. One wife is required for each man, allowing remarriage only in case of infertility.” ● Furthermore, in the western part of the continent, Catholics forbade the marriage of monks and considered it a holy sacrament. ● In the feudal era, marriage became a family contract. ● In Greece, barbers were required to cut the hair of newlyweds. “The wedding is the cutting of the hair — for the woman towards childbirth — for the man towards battle or children.” ● Although I appreciate the evident progress of peoples regarding the regulation of the institution of the family, establishing, for example, quasi-equality in inheritance, in many respects the state of inferiority of women is obvious.
Moreover, the state of dependence of women was a matter of public order, according to the Calimach Code. ● According to the same law, the wife’s infidelity was punished by imprisonment in a monastery and the loss of her dowry. ● Discrimination was obvious in the regulation of divorce, as the husband could dissolve the marriage, according to the same code, for simple infidelity or even only “if, in a tussle, she eats and drinks or bathes together with other strangers without her husband’s will.” In contrast, the wife could request the dissolution of the marriage only if the husband “falling in love with another woman, does not guard himself from her,” and according to the Caragea Legislation, only if the husband brings “pocasadnicia” (read: the other woman) into the house where “all the expense is borne.” ● Moreover, both in Moldavia and in Wallachia, the husband was expressly recognized the right of correction over his wife. ● In Vasile Lupu’s Romanian Book of Learning it was specified that “The man may beat his wife in moderation for her fault, even if there is no deed to say not to beat her.” ● The “moderation” was, however, very badly exaggerated — only beating with a stick or when “the wood breaks.” To remove the meaning of the master of the house’s right, the same law clarified that “If he beats her recklessly with fists or with the palm, it is said that he is acting with hostility towards her.” ● In fact, beating was difficult to defend in court (“without moderation” was very hard to prove especially when it happened at home, the same blows usually being put by the husband under the excuse that the wife “insulted his parents, hit him in the face with the pot, spoke words of shame, poured red wine on him, drove him mad, etc.”). ● According to Roman law, the woman was recognized no other right than that of being subjected, namely, in a “perfect” manner. She was completely deprived of legal capacity, except for a very limited right of inheritance and administration of her dowry. Among the Romans, the woman was protected only as a daughter. ● Among the Greeks, the legal situation of the family was dominated by the same regime. Those who left humanity an inestimable legacy in the field of culture and science created a completely retrograde situation for women. She could not call her husband by name, but called him master, could not sit with him at the table, and was obliged to remain isolated, even guarded by dogs from cradle to grave. ● On the other hand, men, although they practiced monogamous marriage, allowed themselves any liberty, as in ancient Hellas there was built the so-called key of sin, a true network of prostitution, and women of easy morals were raised to the rank of goddesses. ● The woman had no rights in public life, could not be a citizen. ● Among the Romans, in most cases, the husband could kill his wife for adultery. ● In the Netherlands, there was the custom that a man would kill his wife before handing her over to the authorities. ● In feudal France, a wife who cheated on her husband was publicly beaten with fir rods or paraded naked through the market, tied to the tail of a donkey. ● In Napoleon’s Code of 1804, the woman could not be a witness, had no rights in front of the husband. ● If she left home without his consent, she automatically lost the right to her children, property, and dowry. ● In Russia, the code of Peter the Great was even harsher — the woman had to follow her husband anywhere and obey him unconditionally. ● In Russian law, a married woman was not allowed even to sell her dress without her husband’s consent. ● In the Netherlands, in the Middle Ages, if the wife did not obey her husband’s order, she was taken in chains through the streets and washed in public fountains. ● As for domestic legislation, it was in no way milder towards women until the modern codes. The husband had “financial direction” and the right to control his wife’s conduct, relationships, and correspondence. The wife was obliged to request her husband’s authorization for any civil act she wanted to conclude. If she left the marital home or did not follow her husband, she could be brought “back by force.” ● Only through a law from 1923 was the incapacity of the married woman expressly removed, but the state of inequality did not completely disappear, the husband continuing to be the head of the family. ● The institution of the family received a truly fair and principled regulation, in the spirit of human justice, of complete equality, only through our socialist legislation, in which women and children enjoy not only a fair legal regime but also special protection.
Valer Dorneanu, prosecutor in the general prosecutor’s office
___________________
1981, THE SOCIAL FUTURE
Evolution of fertility
All marriage cohorts experienced a significant increase in fertility in 1967. The intensity of the increase is, however, particularly great for the 1950–1955 cohorts, who in 1967 had been married for 10–15 years. It is therefore about cohorts who had largely controlled fertility under the liberal abortion legislation prior to 1967.
Figure 4 is illustrative of the impact that the new legislation had on the fertility of the 1965–1967 cohorts, the fertility rate curves having very specific shapes. These cohorts, to which we could also add those from 1968–1970, will undoubtedly have higher final descendance than both later cohorts and cohorts prior to 1965.
If we take into account that for the 1965–1969 cohorts we have data on fertility achieved in the first 10–14 years of marriage, and taking into account the low values of fertility rates at other durations, we could estimate the final descendance of these cohorts by resorting to extrapolations or, as we have done, by adopting for these durations the current fertility rates from 1979.
Table 4
Fertility Indicators of Marriage Cohorts 1965 — 1969
| Marriage cohort | Estimated final descendance | Proportion of final descendance achieved by the year 1980 (%) and duration of marriage | Proportion of descendance achieved: in the first 5 years | in the first 10 years | in the first 15 years |
| 1965 | 2536 | 96 (14 years) | 63 | 87 | 97 |
| 1966 | 2588 | 95 (13 years) | 65 | 88 | 97 |
| 1967 | 2582 | 93 (12 years) | 65 | 88 | 97 |
| 1968 | 2518 | 91 (11 years) | 64 | 88 | 97 |
| 1969 | 2423 | 89 (10 years) | 63 | 88 | 97 |
Only first-order marriages are taken into consideration, and the rates are calculated in relation to the initial size of the cohort. The durations are in completed years.
Interpretation:
The final descendance is between 2.4 and 2.6 children per woman, thus identical to those we estimated for the 1940—1950 generations. If we take into account that this is an indicator that does not consider the effects of mortality, we can assume that these values correspond to a net descendance of 2.2 – 2.3 children per woman, therefore a net reproduction rate slightly above unity.
In other words, these cohorts ensure a slight surpassing of the replacement level. Reminding ourselves that the 1930—1939 generations did not ensure their own replacement, we are justified in stating that some of the cohorts prior to 1965 (probably those from 1955—1960) did not ensure simple reproduction either. It is certain that in the absence of the increase that occurred after 1966, the cohorts after 1965 would have experienced the same situation.
Finally, one last aspect of marriage fertility we wish to highlight is the increased concentration of descendance formation in the first years of marriage. According to the data from Table 4, almost 90% of the final descendance of the 1965—1969 cohorts is achieved in the first ten years.
______________________
1988, REVISTA FEMEIA
THE FAMILY IN THE SPOTLIGHT OF THE U.N.
From its very inception, the United Nations Organization has given great importance, increased over the years, to the issues of the place and role of women within the family. The documents adopted by the U.N. have highlighted this concern of the world forum.
From various syntheses and updated reports by U.N. bodies — I.L.O., UNESCO, W.H.O., etc. — comes the conclusion that the institution of the family evolves according to economic, social, and cultural changes. It should guarantee the dignity, equality, and security of each of its members and create favorable conditions for the balanced development of the child, both as an individual and as a social being. Only in socialist countries are the place and role of women within the family fully supported and regulated by appropriate legislation. In the global development process, the role of women, as well as that of men, must be considered both from the perspective of their contribution to the family and to society and the national economy.
The more the role within the household — as parent, spouse, and homemaker — enjoys high prestige, the more the personal dignity of man and woman deeply feels the meaning of the household, which is a necessity of communal life, and has been unanimously considered a point of modest economic and social prestige.
And yet, all societies claim a greater value for it, therefore they will, with difficulty, strive to maintain it and fulfill the fundamental functions that characterize a true family.
This idea, highlighted in important UNESCO meeting documents, confirms that the reproductive function of the family is, equally, an important element of social, political, and cultural evolution.
If we want to ensure women’s equality in rights, opportunities, and corresponding responsibilities — they must contribute on an equal footing with men to the development process — the functions and roles that were traditionally attributed to each sex in the family will have to be continuously reexamined and reevaluated in accordance with the changes occurring in society.
The events organized within the Women’s Decade and afterward have contributed to a more direct understanding of the link between family issues and those of humanity as a whole (disintegration, disarmament, safeguarding peace, freedom, modernization, education, elimination of underdevelopment, and establishment of a new international economic order).
In the December 1986 General Assembly of the U.N., it was stated that the goals of the Women’s Decade had been largely achieved. A series of legislative measures have already been adopted by member states and complement the main legislation that regulates and guarantees new legal and equitable equalities, as well as special protection.
Significant successes have been achieved in the fields of maternity protection, family allowances, allowances for mothers, benefits for working mothers, better status for illegitimate children, etc. Progress has also been recorded in achieving equality for women within the family, as well as common rights and duties in the education of children.
In the capitalist world, in some countries, after 1975, new laws were introduced. And the women in these countries fight for their enforcement. However, social conditions require a gradual application. An I.L.O. study shows that the economic situation, permanent inflation, along with existing inequalities in education, social and cultural fields, high rents, insufficient maternity protection, lack of social facilities for placing children in kindergartens, etc., as well as the difficulty of women’s employment conditions, their triple burden of work, housekeeping, and child education leave a mark on family life. In these countries, women are forced to take up jobs in ever-increasing numbers to contribute to the family’s subsistence. Old traditions persist regarding women, such as: selling one’s own daughter, repudiating the wife by her husband, inheriting her by his relatives, widows and orphans left destitute.
The catastrophic conditions in which women in these countries live constitute one of the great obstacles to restoring the status of women and their families and justify the struggle for survival.
U.N. — “Forum” magazine published by the U.N.
Asia and the liberated states of Africa, engaged on the path of social progress, have firmly committed to building the institution of the family in such a way that women have the same rights and responsibilities as men within the family.
Significant efforts have been made to improve the status of women and families in all areas of life. To overcome the colonial legacy and economic backwardness, measures have been taken for literacy, as well as improving the protection of women’s and children’s health. The measures undertaken have been adapted to the economic possibilities of each country to ensure that everyone has the chance to benefit from them in practice. Efforts have also been made to create jobs for women so that they become independent in raising and educating their own children, consisting of these public policies.
Among the measures proposed in recent years in various U.N. documents, in support of the Nairobi document, a text entitled “Long-term Strategy for the Promotion of Women and the Family until the Year 2000” was proposed to contribute to the efforts of developing states to overcome the obstacles to achieving “equality for women” — notable is the support for the drafting of legislation in favor of the extended family, the protection of women, children, and spouses within the new international human rights norms and by law. Thus, marriage legislation should ensure that all international norms are met: it should especially verify and guarantee the equality of husbands and wives from the moment of marriage and throughout the marriage (even if it has not been willingly agreed, in all countries the legislation should establish a minimum age for marriage; this age is important for girls so that they are not subjected early to suffering, allowing them to finish school and reach maturity before marriage). The official registration of marriages should become mandatory. At the same time, customs that infringe upon these rights should be eliminated, especially child marriages and the right to inherit widows.
Men and women should also enjoy equal rights regarding administration and full legal capacity. They should be allowed to have the same property rights — to dispose of what they own, to dispose of them, and to inherit them (including goods accumulated during marriage). Any restrictions on these rights, if they exist, should disappear. Equality should be ensured in all steps of marriage. Women and men should share household tasks equally and play an active role in household work, and spouses, in particular, should participate in the care of children and of their partners.
Taking into account the woman’s point of view has been part of the overall reflection on family rights and has been included in the U.N. document concerning family and children within the 1987 Decade. An important topic was “equality of opportunity and responsibility between spouses, which should also apply to aspects of family relationships, to a deeper understanding of family ties, of relationships between parents and children, between men and women.” Efforts have been made for women and men to enjoy the same rights, the same working and living conditions.
Also, national legislation must provide for the protection and strengthening of the institution of marriage, as well as the special protection and assistance of family members.
CAROL ROMAN
_________________________
1990, TINERETUL LIBER
Take Stock of Your Marriage
For this, you can use the “Marriage Potential Inventory” (M.P.I.) test, the marriage potential inventory, the result of 45 years of research by specialized American therapists.
It is estimated that, in general, 9 out of 10 couples almost never achieve their full potential for happiness. The M.P.I. test is designed precisely to measure these possibilities and consists of a list of 10 key areas where interaction between spouses occurs:
• Common goals and values
• Willingness to improve marital relations
• Communication skills
• Tenderness and respect
• Positive use of conflicts
• Division of tasks
• Cooperation and team spirit
• Sexual satisfaction
• Financial issues
• Behavior toward children or, for marriages without children, decision-making spirit
Each partner separately analyzes the listed areas and rates them from 1 to 10, depending on whether they consider them normal or less successful. Thus, if the husband gives an excellent score to the spirit of cooperation, while the wife gives it a 3 or a 2, it means that in this area there is a major deficiency, affecting the solidarity of those who collaborate for a common life.
If one spouse gives a low score in category 10 and the other a high score in category 5, it means that one party is dissatisfied sexually, the other in decision-making. The total points actually achieved: subtracting 100 from it gives a number corresponding to the possible improvement, provided both partners fully dedicate themselves to their marital success.
The most important stage of the test comes when comparing and analyzing the results. M.P.I. offers a great advantage over any other test in the same category: it opens dialogue, as it invites spouses to dedicate one or two uninterrupted hours of discussion, explaining to each other the merits and shortcomings that could define the priorities for improving their relationship. Specialists’ advice is to immediately implement the results of these discussions.
It is estimated that, in general, 9 out of 10 couples almost never achieve their full potential for happiness. The M.P.I. test is designed to measure these possibilities and consists of a list of 10 areas where interaction between spouses occurs:
• Common goals and values
• Willingness to improve marital relations
• Communication skills
• Tenderness and respect
• Positive use of conflicts
• Division of tasks
• Cooperation and team spirit
• Sexual satisfaction
• Financial issues
• Behavior toward children or, for couples without children, decision-making spirit
A couple confessed that, after 15 years of marriage and 3 children, “we were shocked by the scores and began to think seriously about making notable efforts in this direction.” Talking, the spouses gradually realized that they had let the hazards of existence erode their emotional life. “I had just gone back to work,” says the wife. “He had received an important promotion, and the children were demanding more and more attention. We no longer had the time or energy to focus on ourselves.”
They decided to react: “We couldn’t completely change our life structure,” says the husband. “But we learned not to waste our time together. Thus, from now on, we spent evenings together, talking, making plans, or simply enjoying being together.”
The experience of thousands of couples who have taken the M.P.I. test shows that the most common marital difficulties revolve around 3 areas: respect, communication, and sharing responsibilities.
_________________
1997, FEMEIA MODERNĂ
THE FAMILY – THE ONLY SUPPORT FOR YOUNG COUPLES?
The lucky days brought by glimpsing a bride are becoming fewer and fewer. And this, despite the fact that, among the former communist countries, our country, in 1996, was surpassed in the number of marriages only by Poland, and among the other European countries, only by Denmark. However, there are enough signs that, at present, the institution of Romanian marriage is showing decreasing levels. Not yet alarming, because we are still, in the opinion of Professor Vasile Ghețău, researcher at the Statistics Center of the Romanian Academy, under the effect of the “’67–’68 generation,” a large generation, as a result of the ban on abortions, now at marriageable age.
According to the study “The Issue of the Formation and Functioning of Young Couples in Romanian Society During the Transition Period,” coordinated by Mrs. Claudia Buruiană from the Center for Studies and Research on Youth Issues, young women marry, as of 1996, between the ages of 20–24. In rural areas, over 36% of young women marry under the age of 20, while in urban areas, only 17% marry at this age (See Table 1). The average age at first marriage increased, between 1990–1996, from 25 to 26 years for men, and from 22 to 23 years for women. The increase in age and decrease in marriage rates are explainable, with the additional observation that the nuptiality rate achieved in 1994, “the last year with tolerable legislation,” was not reached in subsequent years. If in 1990, 15% of young people aged 19–29 had a legally registered marital status, in 1996 they represented only 11%. All these indicators refer to a new model of marriage in Romania.
What are the reasons why the number of marriages is decreasing? (see Table 3). Mr. Sorin Botezatu, sociologist, state counselor within the Department for the Promotion and Assurance of Respect for Women’s Rights, Directorate for the Development of Family Policies, states that the main obstacles for young people are material in nature and fall into two main categories:
- lack of housing;
- lack of material resources necessary for a marriage.
The bare necessities currently cost several tens of millions, a sum that most young couples do not have. The absence of housing, which leads to cohabitation with parents and generates intergenerational conflicts. Moral changes and trends in the marriage model are increasingly numerous. People who do not legally formalize their cohabitation — a phenomenon long present in the West.
The programs proposed by the Directorate for the Development of Family Policies are welcome but totally insufficient, given that material difficulties are what disarm young people who want to start a family.
Unfortunately, there is no department that deals solely and entirely with all the problems of the young family. It is true that, until recently, this important segment had not even been taken into account by ministries. NGOs declare that “it is one of the sores that hurts us. NGOs do not come with long-term programs. We receive projects in their fields of interest. It is a problem that, they believe, exceeds their capabilities. We can only fund them.”
Apart from Ordinance 19, there have been no programs for newly married couples.
Ordinance 19, issued in 1994, was in effect in 1995 and in 1997, and it is not known whether it will be heard of again this year. At the City Hall of Sector 2, Bucharest, 1,180 applications have been registered from 1994 until now, with 270 housing units distributed.
INVITATION TO… MEDITATION
The month of June brings to school life either the end of the school year: papers, exams, grades, ceremonies-performances, and award ceremonies. This latter event has a special meaning in every student’s life. The role of the juries, of those who evaluate award performances, involves great responsibility. They must stimulate students, highlight their qualities, and encourage their efforts.
For some parents, school is the ground on which their unrealized ambitions have another chance to be fulfilled through their only child. Therefore, this end of the school year is a moment that should be thought about with lucidity.
CARMEN MUȘAT-COMAN
________________
Love is sweeter in cohabitation
Statistics reveal that approximately 10% of children born in Iași are from outside marriage. Few result from fleeting relationships or from “mistakes” of very young mothers. The rest are born into stable or less stable cohabiting couples. On the other hand, among young people, cohabitation or prolonged dating or free union has become a trend. A trend greatly fueled by the financial and material difficulties involved in a legal marriage.
Things do not change much even when a child appears in the couple. Although no very detailed studies have been made, it is known that around 30% of young couples live in cohabitation. The single mother is also in fashion, and not only in our country. Moreover, entire generations have not really had a strong religious, Christian education, which is why marriage is no longer considered one of the “sacraments” from which a couple’s spiritual growth should stem.
Women “cohabit” because it is modern, men, out of loneliness
Cohabitation can be defined in many ways. In the dictionary, it is described as a free union, a lifestyle that involves the cohabitation of heterosexual couples outside of marriage. In our country, cohabitation has already become a phenomenon and has even begun to be studied by specialists. In the West and in the United States, cohabitation appeared as a syndrome of deinstitutionalization. Young people grew bored of the classic formula of the legally constituted family and began to seek alternatives. Sociologists also define cohabitation as a maximally exacerbated cult of personal autonomy. Without a “contract” between them, cohabiting couples feel much freer compared to the many married people around them.
For Romania, the problems related to cohabitation have only just begun. In the West, the phenomenon dates back to the 1960s–1970s. An analysis of the phenomenon began then because there was a significant increase in the number of births outside marriage. It was found that women up to the age of 40 preferred cohabitation, but a relatively stable one, with a single partner. Men, on the other hand, much more sensitive to loneliness, jumped from cohabitation to cohabitation, none of them lasting. In practice, women somehow prefer stability, while for men, one of the motivations for living with a partner is the fear of loneliness.
Fear of divorce and fear of incurable diseases are nails against marriage
One of the causes of the increase in the number of cohabitants is the shortening of the marriage period in the “normal” family. The number of divorces has increased year after year, making, in the last two years, a jump from 1.4 per thousand to 1.8 per thousand. In addition, more and more divorces are occurring among young couples, on the grounds of “incompatibility.” After an unsuccessful marriage, women especially prefer to stand on their own two feet and, possibly, have a partner but not a husband. Remarriages are very rare, both in our country and in the West.
Another cause is the change in mentality regarding solving life’s problems. In a married couple, major problems fall on the shoulders of the husband, the head of the family. In cohabitation, only the joys are shared, not the failures. Although it may seem strange, one of the reasons young people do not marry is the fear of divorce. Because a divorce process is long, costly, and stressful, young people put the cart before the horse and do not marry. The separation of cohabitants is much easier. Partners suffer little, but they do not go through the ordeal of a divorce.
Even stranger is another cause found by sociologists, namely the fear of incurable diseases. Young people are very frightened by the temptation of adultery. The forbidden fruit for married partners is much sweeter and, from here, the possibility of bringing an incurable disease such as AIDS into the home is greater. “In my opinion, the temptations of adultery can appear and tempt equally both a married person and a cohabitant. I believe that in marriage, the sexual relationship is, nevertheless, protected and the risks are smaller,” says Associate Professor Nicu Gavriluță, sociologist.
Cohabitation means more freedom for women
In some cases, cohabitation is seen as an opportunity for women. Without being constrained by the rigors of a traditional marriage, they can have more freedom of decision, share responsibilities equally, and avoid the legal and social constraints of marriage. Also, in a free union, a woman can more easily leave a partner who abuses her, without having to go through a long divorce process.
At the same time, women can benefit from the flexibility of the relationship, especially if they have already been married and have gone through a traumatic breakup. Many times, they choose cohabitation precisely because they do not want to repeat past experiences. This choice gives them control over their own lives and the possibility to maintain their independence.
The solution? Marriage by choice, not imposed
Psychologists and sociologists believe that the issue is not in choosing between marriage and cohabitation, but in the maturity of the decision. A marriage entered into willingly, based on trust, respect, and shared responsibility can be just as solid and valuable as a well-built free relationship. The problem arises when either form is imposed by social pressures, passing trends, or personal fears.
“We have reached the point where relationships are no longer judged solely through the lens of legal form. People seek emotional comfort, stability, and sincerity. Whether they live in cohabitation or in marriage, what matters is that they know what they want and take responsibility for their partner,” adds sociologist from Iași, Nicu Gavriluță.
___________________
2008, ZIARUL DE SIBIU
Marriage and its role in the peasant mindset
An occasion for joy and feasting in anyone’s life, marriage (the wedding) remains one of the landmark moments in a person’s life. In his book The Wedding among Romanians, Simion Florea Marian managed to capture very well how marriage is viewed in the mindset of peasant communities.
“The purpose of marriage,” writes Marian, deciphering for us the meanings of this important moment in a couple’s life, “is:
first: to have a companion for help and companionship, for comfort and the alleviation of sorrows in case of misfortune…
second: to have legitimate heirs, who will preserve the family name, so that their bloodline and lineage will never die out, then to have someone to inherit the parental home, so that it does not pass into foreign hands, further to have someone to care for them in old age…
finally, third: so that they are not reproached that they were born and lived in this world for nothing, as all too often happens to those who remain unmarried.”
__________________________
2018, TELEGRAFUL ROMÂN
The principles of family law versus civil partnership. From tradition to modernism?
For a republic to be well constituted, the first laws must be those that regulate marriages, stated Plato, the great modern philosopher of Antiquity. From the earliest times until today, the family has been seen as a nucleus that forms the foundation of society, as a laboratory from which the fundamental values of an individual, in particular, and of society, in general, are born.
The importance of the family in society has inevitably led to its study from several perspectives: biological, sociological, legal, and economic. Traditionally, the family is made up of people united by marriage and filiation. Although the concepts of family and marriage are closely linked, today we are witnessing more and more alarm bells about the decline of marriages, the redefinition of the family from the perspective of same-sex marriages or partnerships between two people of different sexes or the same sex. It is undeniable that family relationships have many particularities in everyday life, hence the need to regulate the family according to the elements of originality existing in fact.
Legal protection of the family is a point of interest in all rule-of-law states. At the European level, differentiated family protection policies, based on marriage, as well as the emergence and encouragement of new legal forms of cohabitation, have led, from 1965 to today, to a 50% decrease in the marriage rate in all member states.
Thus, member states such as Poland, Croatia, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, and Romania have sought to stimulate and protect the traditional family and have explicitly enshrined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Constitutional protection of the family against any attempts to erode marriage, as a freely consented union between a man and a woman, for the purpose of starting a family and procreation, thus becomes an essential measure to protect the Romanian people, their identity, and unity within the great European family, stated the Constitutional Court, entrusted with ruling on the constitutionality of the text of Article 48 of the Constitution.
By replacing the phrase “between spouses” with “between a man and a woman,” only a clarification is made regarding the exercise of the fundamental right to marriage, expressly establishing that it is concluded between partners of different biological sex. This being, moreover, the original meaning of the text. In 1991, when the Constitution was adopted, marriage was viewed in Romania in its traditional sense, as a union between a man and a woman.
This idea is supported by the subsequent evolution of family law legislation in Romania, as well as by the systematic interpretation of the relevant constitutional norms. Thus, Article 48 of the Constitution defines the institution of marriage in correlation with the protection of children, both “born out of wedlock” and “born in wedlock,” making it undoubtedly clear that it was seen as the union between a man and a woman, since only from such a union, whether within marriage or outside it, can children be born.
By the same decision, the Constitutional Court approved one of the largest initiatives of civil society, namely that of defining in the Constitution marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
This approach is part of the European and international context of redefining the notion of family. In recent years, several European states, such as Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Iceland, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland), Spain, Sweden, and the Netherlands, have legalized same-sex marriages.
At the same time, in some European Union countries, civil unions and registered partnerships are considered equivalent or comparable to marriage.
Countries that allow same-sex marriages generally also recognize registered partnerships concluded in other countries between same-sex persons.
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Lucia Irinescu
Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, Iași
___________________
2020, DILEMA VECHE
And they lived happily… until when?
“I don’t see the point of marriage if I don’t want children,” a friend told me a few years ago. Since then, just as has been happening for several decades, the number of marriages has slowly but steadily declined, in tandem with the increase in divorces.
In the EU, in 2016, there were 2.2 million marriages and almost one million divorces, according to Eurostat. In Romania, the ratio was about one divorce for every four marriages. Americans came up with a more poetic calculation: while one couple recites their wedding vows, another nine tear them to shreds. The leading cause of divorce across the ocean is not infidelity, as one might think, but a lack of understanding between the two.
People prefer to live together in what Facebook categorizes as a “domestic partnership.” If it doesn’t work out, they break up more easily, without lawyers or alimony. The percentage of those who cohabit without the same name on the door has reached levels that would have seemed inconceivable a few decades ago (in the USA, it has increased by almost 30% since 2007, according to data from the Pew Research Center). Relationships have become like consumer goods, whose variety on the shelves stuns you to the point where you no longer know what to choose. Sometimes there are several, different ones, in parallel, other times they are replaced before being fully experienced, in other cases the minimal effort to repair them is not even made.
Restaurants booked years in advance, civil weddings scheduled at fifteen-minute intervals, honeymoon travel packages, and the increasingly sought-after wedding photographer profession prove that people still sign, hoping they will live “happily ever after.” The main reason is one for which no statistics or annual monitoring are needed; it is enough to think of all the couples you know: that women, they, want marriage very much.
Centuries have passed since the only way a woman could survive was by finding a husband. One hundred years since women have been voting and, in practice, nothing stops them from choosing whatever profession they want. They no longer have to sign a newspaper article with a male pseudonym, nor wear dresses or long hair. Their desire to marry seems to be the only one that defies the passage of time, laughs in the face of emancipation and gender equality, and fuels the imagination with stories of princes and dresses that must be pure white.
I tried to find out what lies behind this desire and kept asking until their answers began to repeat. The desire to be mothers would be the first reason, and even if, biologically, it could be fulfilled relatively easily, for children it is still preferable, in today’s society, to appear and grow up alongside married parents. They want it to be easier for them, not to always have to compare themselves to other children’s families or have ready-made answers for gossip at every step.
In times when professions no longer have gender, the desire for a better material situation does not always seek resolution through choosing a more lucrative profession. “There are things I cannot afford on my own,” many women say. “That signed piece of paper is, for me, a guarantee that I will not see him holding another woman’s hand on the street,” I’ve also heard. “My marriage would make my parents happy; for me, it’s not that important, but they would be calmer knowing I’m not alone and, if I can give them that joy, why not?” “Professionally, things have worked out very well for me, my loved ones are healthy, I have achieved many dreamed-of goals for which I worked hard, and I am finally happy. I am getting married to somehow certify this happiness. To make it complete.”
Fairy tales with princes and perfectly white dresses never say how to carry that happiness “ever after.” A possible winning choice would be to already be happy on your own. And marriage should come only to round out here and there this happiness and make it complete.
Anda Docea