|
Marriage and the Family
1st Parallel View
By the beginning of the 21st century, there were tensions in the institution of family, especially in the Western
Hemisphere which had developed an identifiable set of behaviours called Western culture. The androcentric society traditionally
discriminated against females, who in response organised the Feminist Movement. One of their successes was to
influence the justice system to favour females on issues affecting the family. As a direct result of their pressure,
the female was invariably awarded the home and the care of any children if a marriage ended in a divorce.. Other
assets were evenly shared. Many sociologist recognise this move as the single factor that discouraged marriage. Subsequently,
males viewed marriage as a surrender of their rights and shied away from it. In 2003 the percentage of males above 30
years who were married was about 55 and females around 49. These figures have plummeted to 15 and 9 this year, 2053.
In terms of divorce, the rate which was 50% in 2003 is now just 5%. Apparently,although fewer people take
matrimonial vows these days, once they are married they seem unable to afford to break up
|
 |
|
2nd Parallel View
By 2003 The Family Institution was clearly under assault. Compared to the years preceding it, fewer people
were getting married, the divorce rate was rising and many children were being born out of wedlock. Most alarmingly, many
male parents were becoming deadbeat fathers who did not contribute to their childrens' upkeep. Single parent females
constituted a new impoverished class.
In response. the Justice system, awarded custody of children in divorce cases to the mothers, who were deemed
to be more tightly bonded to the offsprings and got tough on deadbeat fathers.
Since then the family appears to have been saved. Marriages are up, the number of single parents families has
fallen drastically, fewer marriages are breaking up and the number of fathers surveyed in 2053 not paying child support
is minuscule.
|
|
|
|
War on Terror
One of the Dominating Issues half a century ago was how best to respond to non-state
terror activities.
1st Parallel View
On September 11 2001, an attack took place in New York. The attackers forcibly took over the controls of rudimentary
air-buoyant vehicles with passengers to crash into perhaps the two most symbolic edifices of the city. In the wake
of the atrocious act, the then President, George Bush Jnr declared a War on Terror directed against the suspected
perpetrators in particular and all supporters of terrorism worldwide, in general.
Since then all planned terrorist acts were nipped in the bud. The decisive actions truncated finance for
terrorists, discouraged intended terrorists and wiped out terrorism. 50 years on, the world has enjoyed a period
of calm and peace.
2nd Parallel View
The War on Terror like all wars on an abstract enemy did not have the intended result. The entire approach
was militaristic and imperialistic with vengeful undertones. It served as an opportunity to control the fossil fuel
resources of the countries that were then endowned. The root cause of the attacks, which was injustice for a large
segment of the world population, politically, economically and socially were not directly addressed. In fact, the effect of
the initial response was to breed more ill-feelings amongst the next generation. With the wholesale availability of military
technology in the years that followed, a vicious cycle of violence engulfed the world. The positive result however, was
the realisation by rational world leaders later, that conflicts needed to be confronted on the basis of fairness,
consistent justice and not by violence which only begets more violence.
|
|
|
|
|
