The Instigator
Alexander_G
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Rew
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Marriage Institution Should be Abolished and Replaced with the New Matriarchy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 506 times Debate No: 76485
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Alexander_G

Pro

Currently, marriage is based on "love", which makes it unstable, unreliable and unsustainable. As a social institution, it's outdated in the 21st century. It should be replaced with a new one. I think gay marriage is just a step. The ultimate solution is a new Matriarchy, which will change everything including capitalism since the traditional two-parent family is the foundation of it. Here is how I picture the new matriarch society.

The family structure is completely different. Since marriage doesn't exist anymore, nor does the union of two - be it a man and a woman, two men or two women. Instead, it will be much bigger, and all the members are related under the same family name.

The new normal will be like this - one "matriarch", which is the grandma; ALL of her children, say, a daughter and a son, both adults; and, her daughter's children - also a girl and a boy, for instance, both under the age of 18. This family is consisted of 5 people in three generations. Let's call them the Smiths - Lady Smith, Ms. Smith, Mr. Smith and the two kids. There's another family with the exactly same structure. Let's call them the Johnsons. Here, as you can guess, Mr. Johnson fathered Ms. Smith's kids while Mr. Smith fathered Ms. Johnson's. Since marriage institution doesn't exist, Ms. Smith still lives with her brother and her mom after she has her own kids. Mr. Smith, though as the uncle, acts as the father. And the same goes to Mr. and Ms. Johnsons. So, biologically, these two families are intertwined, but socially, they are perfectly separated.

That is the simplest model. If the matriarch has more children, it would be a little complicated, but among these children, one - usually oldest daughter - is the caretaker, like Ms. Smith and Ms. Johnson, while her siblings, regardless of gender, are all providers working hard to support the family. They may live with her and the kids, or they can move out to their own places if they like. They will send money back and come visit once in a while.

A special situation is that a woman has no daughter. All of her children are boys. In that case, if she still wants to further her family line, she could adopt her sister's daughter upon agreement.

The advantages:

1. Peaceful and simple relationships between individuals. There will be no prostitution, rape, sex trafficking or any sex-related crimes. Dating, cheating and even the concept of romance will no longer exist. Sex for procreation only, as it's supposed to be, and love for family members only.

2. The empowerment of women. A woman will have the sole "ownership" of her children. One will bear his or her mother's last name from birth to earth and be loyal to the family that raised them. Rather than pushing women into the workforce at the price of delaying their pregnancy, this is the true and well-deserved empowerment of women, not today's feminazi's revenge with their demonization of men. If a woman has a large number of children and does most of the nurturing, later in life she'll likely to become the political leader of the clan, the community, even the whole town. On the other hand, if she wants to pursue a career, she can go ahead and let the caretaker of the house look after her children. She will have the total control over their own sexuality, reproduction and life.

3. The liberation of men. To strangers, a man is just a sperm donor and nothing else. Not anonymous, though, because he's accountable under a contract that he signed with his sexual partner prior to their sex. Even if a man has fathered a hundred children, he will have zero obligation to any of them - unless there occurs some inheritable diseases from him, in which case he could have to pay. These children will know who their biological father is only to prevent future inbreeding. Other than that, no emotional strings attached. Within the family, he's still respected and loved by his mom, his siblings and his nephews and nieces.

4. Closedness of family members. Obviously, in such a matriarch society, siblings do not split up and start their own families upon adulthood. They may not necessarily live together like they used to be, but they will be united as ever, thus they will less likely to have a money fight over family property.

5. Shared pressure of parenting. As mentioned aboved, if a family has more than two adults, there will be more income. Each sibling does their own job according to their own talent - protecting, caretaking, teaching, sponsoring, etc. A family unit will work like a company. Everyone will be rewarded for their contribution and punished for their fault.

6. Easy and healthy childbirth. Support from a big family allows a woman to start having children at a very young age, thus lower risks of birth defects and complications. Her elders and older siblings will teach her about parenting and help her with that, emotionally and financially. It will also be encouraged because having children becomes a huge investment for the family's future rather than an expense or some unwanted consequence of the Original Sin.

7. Betterment of the gene pool. Human reproduction becomes a commercial act. On this market, women are the buyers and men are the sellers. Women will go shopping for desirable traits - which, fore the sake of fairness, are strictly limited to genetic traits. Education background, income, social status, hobbies, and even talents are all excluded. A woman will judge by a man physical appearance and medical record alone to decide whether he's worthy of planting his seeds inside of her. Therefore, men will have a fair fight for the mating rights and the ladies get to decide. The strong and the handsome will have many many children like stars in the sky, while the weak and the sick will have less or none. Only then can eugenics be NATURALLY achieved without violent abortion and sterilization.

I assumed that my opponent should be a defender of traditional marriage, so state your reasons of why it, and patriarchy at large, is better than matriarchy that I just described. And please, do NOT mention anything about marriage "equality", the LGBT rights or any political stuffs because that would be off-topic. This debate is about whether marriage should be abolished.
Rew

Con

Thank you Alexander_G for the opportunity to debate.

While “The New Matriarchy” has the appeal of something that could come from the pages of a good sci-fi novel, it fundamentally is at odds with human biological drives, doesn’t provide suggested advantages, and current marital relationships serve us far better. Since I can show it provides no clear advantages, would not be adopted, and current marriage serves us better, we should not abolish our current marital systems.

I’ll be arguing the following three points:
  • Round 1 : “The New Matriarchy” would not provide the stated advantages
  • Round 2 : “The New Matriarchy” could not be adopted by humans, as it is at odds with biological drives
  • Round 3 : The current institution of marriage serves our biologic and relationship needs far better


“The New Matriarchy” Doesn’t Provide Stated Advantages:

There are some sweeping general statements provided by pro, but these are wholly unsupported. There is no evidence to suggest any claims are plausible. I’ll present counter argument with sources. If we are in hypothetical exploration territory, I will present an equally as plausible outcome of “The New Matriarchy”.

"There will be no prostitution, rape, sex trafficking or any sex-related crimes.” - This seems extremely improbable as sexual crimes and prostitution do not appear to be tied to relationship structures but more to power inequalities, desire for revenge, sense of failures in the perpetrators, and poverty [1,2,3] “The New Matriarchy” will not remove power inequalities, appetites for sex, or address core issues which seem to motivate rape or prostitution.

"Dating, cheating and even the concept of romance will no longer exist.” - The non-existance of dating and romance would not be classified as an advantage. For many these are highly enjoyable things. [Just google "romance" or "dating fun"]

"Sex for procreation only, as it's supposed to be, and love for family members only.” - Human animals have recreational sex, and would still do so under “The New Matriarchy”. Biological tendencies would not suddenly disappear. Human females produce no outward signal of fertility. [4] The advantage and design of this is to keep potential mates close by for long periods of time. [4] This fosters co-habitation, pooling resources, and joint parenting. [4] Sex releases chemicals in the body humans crave and which also produce bonding. [4] The phrase “as it’s supposed to be” is judgement and blanket statement only.

“… a man is just a sperm donor and nothing else. Even if a man has fathered a hundred children, he will have zero obligation to any of them.” - The suggestion of “The New Matriarchy” reduces the male role to not being a part of raising his own children. This is counter to fatherhood and parenting in humans. Fathers have a huge vested interest in raising their own children and our species has developed and become successful because of it. [5]

"They may not necessarily live together like they used to be, but they will be united as ever, thus they will less likely to have a money fight over family property.” - If anything, because as proposed and as I interpret, siblings will be living with one another for more of their adult life, conflict may actually increase. It certainly wouldn’t lessen for no clear reason. See supportive source here, which details sibling rivalry, and general sibling relationships. [6]

What is described in, “5.Shared pressure of parenting. …” doesn’t require a system like “The New Matriarchy” to achieve. There are very close knit family and societal structures today which operate as you suggest with current marital practice in place. Burden of proof on you here to show that “The New Matriarchy” can bring this about, and it could not manifest with current marital practice. Here are countless sources of large family businesses and close knit families. [7,8]


"Support from a big family allows a woman to start having children at a very young age, thus lower risks of birth defects and complications.” - Does “The New Matriarchy” motivate having children at a younger age? I do not believe that has been argued. If so, why? While I agree that more familial support would allow younger mothers, I don’t believe you have shown that younger motherhood would be a societal trend under “The New Matriarchy"

"It will also be encouraged because having children becomes a huge investment for the family's future rather than an expense or some unwanted consequence of the Original Sin.” - Children are a net expenses to a family, not a net gain, in my society. [9] Thus the more a family has, the higher the total cost.

"On this market, women are the buyers and men are the sellers.” - It is biologically more expensive for women to procreate, so they have, and always will be “sellers”. Men are “buyers”. In current societies, outside of forced sexual encounters, women are the ones who decide whom they do and do not have sex with. Men offer and seek, women have final say. [see sexual selection 10, 11]

"A woman will judge by a man physical appearance and medical record alone to decide whether he's worthy of planting his seeds inside of her.” - No she won’t. [12,13]


1. http://www.criminaljusticeschoolinfo.com...
2. http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu...
3. http://www.uri.edu...
4. https://en.wikipedia.org...
5. http://www.parentingscience.com...
6. https://www.psychologytoday.com...
7. http://www.businessinsider.com...
8. http://www.uvm.edu...
9. https://en.wikipedia.org...
10. https://en.wikipedia.org...
11. https://en.wikipedia.org...
12. https://en.wikipedia.org...
13. http://www.theguardian.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Alexander_G

Pro

As you may have known, in the animal world, the males fight hard with each other for the mating right and the females get to pick the winners, which is called sexual selection. For that reason, males of most species are much prettier than the females. They have developed prominent traits in order to win a fight - such as deer's antlers - or to draw the females attention - such as peacock's tails. That doesn't seem to apply to human. The men compete for ladies as well, but strangely, it's the ladies who dress up to draw the men's attention. They become sellers and men the buyers, just as you said, and all the time in history, the market is the buyer's. I don't think that's fair. A New Matriarchy is the solution to make it right. I do believe it's the future, as marriage rate is already plummeting in all developed countries. Biologically, it's more natural as well.

Sex-related crimes. If you consider sex a resource provided by women - which you do already, as you did think of women as the "sellers" on the market, you'll realize that, like any resource, it can be controlled, hoarded, even monopolized by the powerful, and the result of which is devastating. Some men can have a harem of women lining up to sleep with, while others have zero. Such great inequality is the real root of all kinds of sex-related crimes. The social function of marriage is to raise children, providing them a stable and peaceful environment to grow up, but the down side is, it puts the most natural human desire in cage. Therefore, biologically, marriage is beneficial to the group but oppressive for individuals. One has to give up a part of his or her own freedom for the continuity and wellbeing of the human race.

I admit that a matriarchy cannot remove that inequality, but it gives access to sex for everyone with needs. In such a society, making healthy babies becomes a duty for a family's all female members, while recreational sex and procreational sex - or, "sex for the state" and "sex for pleasure" - are separated. Women will finish having the ideal number of children at a very young age, the prime of her fertility. After the accomplishment of that "mission", no matter how promiscuous she wants to be and whomever she sleeps with, her sex life will stay out of her family with significant negative effect on her children.

Currently, women do not have kids until late 20s, mid 30s or even early 40s when she's done experiencing all the "fun" of sex. As the consequences of that, when they're finally "ready", they will suffer from difficulty to conceive, complications at childbirth, birth defects, lower number of children, and many others. Reproductive technologies like IVF or frozen eggs, though expensive, will not help much as they're just remedies that cannot make an old womb young again. Such problems can be avoided by doing it early, say, finish having the ideal number of children before 30.

That being said, that "ideal" number depends on the previous family size and its bank account. As the new family structure is consisted of one Matriarch and her adult children all bearing her last name and usually the oldest daughter is the caretaker, then obviously, to her, the more siblings she has, the more children she and her sisters can have, and her pressure can be shared since her siblings can substitute and they are more trustworthy than hired hands.

Another big separation is the one of parental roles and biological parents. Instead of two actual persons, "mother" and "father" become caretaker and provider, one specializing at babysitting, education, cooking and housekeeping, while the other at any work that can make money and protect the caretaker and the children from dangers. The purpose of this is the "division of labor", making personal life personal and professional life professional, so one will not have to struggle to balance between family and career. Like any job, a caretaker, the new "mother", supposedly a woman, will be held accountable for the wellbeing of her sons, daughters, nieces, nephews and perhaps some orphans that are arranged to her, and she will have her job evaluated based on meritocracy. If the children appear to be healthy, happy, behaving well and having good academic performance, she will be rewarded by her family and the local authority; otherwise, if she's accused to be abusing or neglecting her children, she'll be punished for her "malpractice".

The ultimate reward for the caretaker will be the right to inherit the family fortune and the title of Matriarch. Her siblings, on the other hand, have to live on their own regardless of gender. The positive effect is, no more Cinderellas. Without marriage, no one can become rich overnight by charming or simply seducing somebody rich.

No let's talk about men's role of sperm donor. That is nothing new. Sperm bank has existed for decades, and it really makes it possible for a donor to father a hundred children with zero obligation to any of them. The only change is that traditional fatherhood becomes "unclehood" or "aunthood", as I described above.

Biologically, at one time a man can impregnate multiple women, while a woman can only carry one man's child, therefore, the quality of this man's offsprings is decided by his sperms, while the quantity is decided by the number of those "multiple women" and each one's fertility. If there's a small population is always somewhere around 1,000 and a man fathered 100 children, then his children alone will count for 1/10. That is why we need a system that maximizes the good genes - the altruistic ones - and minimizes the bad ones - the
"selfish" ones. If reproduction is commercialized, the free market and science will pick the "winner genes" to improve the next generation's quality. The current society is like a "reversed Darwinism", as it is the poor immigrants who have large families while the upper and the middle classes are shrinking. If that continues, America will be dominated by the Latinos and Indians while Europe the muslims, after a few generation, the entire western civilization will fall.
Rew

Con

Rew forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Alexander_G

Pro

Alexander_G forfeited this round.
Rew

Con

Rew forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.