Amazon.com Widgets

Marriage Institution Should be Abolished and Replaced with a New Matriarchy

Asked by: Alexander_G
  • Matriarchy is the Future.

    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 As a social institution, it's outdated in the 21st century.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 new normal will be like this - one "matriarch"; her daughter and her son, both adults; and, her daughter's children - also a girl and a boy, 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.

    The advantages:

    1. Peaceful and simple relationships between individuals. No more sex-related crimes or conflicts. 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. 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. Within the family, he's still providers 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.

    5. Shared pressure of parenting. As mentioned above, if a family has more than two adults, there will be more income and support.

    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.

    7. Betterment of human genome. 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. 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.

  • This is insane

    1. "Sex for procreation only, as it's supposed to be,"
    Why do you get to decide who gets to have sex? Also, do homosexuals not get the right to have sex?

    2. "She will have the total control over their own sexuality,"
    A women can not have control over anyone's sexuality, it's not a choice, no one can.

    3. ", a man is just a sperm donor and nothing else."
    That statement is highly offensive and unjustified. "A women is just a baby carrier and nothing else." Is that offensive?

    4. "Obviously, in such a matriarch society, siblings do not split up and start their own families upon adulthood."
    Why is that obvious, and what is wrong with starting a new family.

    5. As mentioned above, if a family has more than two adults, there will be more income and support.
    This argument is used to support polygamy all the time, do you also support it?

    6. "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."
    ARE YOU INSANE??? Giving birth a very young age INCREASES the risk of complication!!!

    7. "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."
    At this point I greatly hope you are an internet troll, because from what you have written, you are ignorant of, well, everything.

  • It will make things worse

    You people think the world is bad now? Just think if the woman made all the decisions instead of the man. The woman already influences about 75% of the decisions, and if she gets complete control, the results may be devastating. At the end of every month, when women have a period, there will be stupid and anger-prone decisions made.

  • Matriarchy will end up in genocide

    Women want matriarchy because it would make them queens. Naturally women always want more and true love is not part of their nature. They can even envy their children, or simply use them to achiev their own prosperity.
    Their egocentric nature has a role in society: the man builds for the women. In a matriarchy, or hypergamic and polygamic society, the sexual energy and enslavement from men would lead, at a big scale, to either the use of massive military force to control other men, highly effective drugs, or simply lead to a war between men, and ultimately to the extinction of people like the one who published such an uneducated comment.
    In the history, all civilization that collapsed ended with a matriarchy and grew with a patriarchy. Sexual freedom must be restricted and monogamy is the only institutions that can redirect peafully the sexual energ to the improvement of society.
    As a man, I feel highly scared that some women think that way. If men do not stand up to control and limit their women, they ll truly end up enslaved.
    Women are in control are dangerous.

  • Is this satire?

    I’m honestly not sure if this is meant to be a serious argument. It assumes that basic human desires and affections can be eradicate by suggesting “Sex for procreation only.” It falsely suggests that “crimes and conflicts” come from the structure of society instead of from human nature. It completely devalues fatherhood by reducing a man to “a sperm donor.” It ignores the more complex economic and social structures that we see in cultures where large families do live together. It reduces the most intimate human interactions to “a commercial act.” And it falsely suggests a “betterment of human genome,” as if both men and women currently are not looking for positive qualities in a spouse which they wish to pass on to their children.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.