Samuel Marshall
In recent years, discussions about gender relations have become increasingly intense, particularly in relation to marriage, divorce, and the shifting expectations between men and women. Many observers point to the growing influence of feminist institutions and the strict enforcement of gender equality laws as key factors behind the rising wave of domestic conflicts and marital breakdowns in contemporary society. But the question remains: Are these reforms the cause of the tension, or are they merely responses to a crisis that was already unfolding?
This is not a matter to be understood through simplistic blame. Rather, it requires a deeper look into how society itself has changed.
For centuries, the traditional household operated on a clearly defined structure. The man was the provider and public representative of the family, while the woman managed the home and upbringing of the children. This arrangement was not viewed merely as a practical division of labour—it was considered natural, moral, and culturally sacred. Roles were not negotiated; they were assumed.
But over the past century, fundamental shifts occurred.
Women gained access to education and professional opportunities. Urbanization reshaped living patterns and weakened extended family oversight. The global economy evolved, allowing women to earn income and, with it, a degree of financial independence previously unimaginable. Meanwhile, modern culture placed increasing emphasis on personal fulfillment, autonomy, and individual expression.
These changes did not simply alter what people do; they altered how people define themselves.
It is within this context that feminist organizations and gender equality laws emerged. They were not the spark of social change—they were the voice of it. They gave structure, language, and legal recognition to new expectations that had already taken root.
However, once institutionalized, these reforms began to reshape personal relationships more visibly. Marriage, once anchored in duty and defined roles, has gradually evolved into a partnership negotiated between two individuals—each with their own aspirations, career ambitions, emotional needs, and self-conception. In such a framework, harmony is no longer automatic; it requires continuous communication, compromise, and emotional maturity.
This is where the tension begins to surface.
Many men feel disoriented by the erosion of traditional authority, unsure of how to assert identity without appearing oppressive. Many women, on the other hand, feel burdened by the expectation to be both economically empowered and emotionally nurturing—roles which often conflict and stretch their energies thin. The home has become not just a place of stability, but a site of negotiation, sometimes friction, and in more worrying cases, conflict.
The rise in divorce rates and domestic disputes cannot therefore be attributed to feminist movements alone. Nor can the responsibility be placed solely on the persistence of traditional beliefs. Instead, both are reacting to a deeper shift: the movement from a communal, duty-bound household model to an individual-centered, self-actualizing one.
What we are witnessing is not a simple cause-and-effect scenario, but a feedback loop:
Changing social conditions led to calls for gender equality.
Reforms empowered individuals and redefined roles.
These new roles challenged established expectations.
The resulting tensions led to further calls for reform.
The cycle continues, and with it, society continues to search for balance.
The challenge now is not to return to the past—because the past cannot simply be restored—nor to surrender uncritically to the future. Instead, the task is to develop a new understanding of partnership that respects both individual identity and shared responsibility.
The real question is not who is to blame. The real question is: How can we build relationships that honour both freedom and stability in a world that is still learning how to reconcile the two?***
