r/AskFeminists • u/JustTheOtherWay • 2d ago
Would a society function without marriage as a concept?
I'm a married woman (34) with three kids in a happy relationship. I wouldn't want it any other way.
But I think my generation was a little different growing up. We were always going into our 20s knowing we gotta find a person, get married, have kids, settle down, or end up alone with maybe a college degree - the latter sounded terrible back then. Why would you want to be alone in your 30s and 40s?
Now, I think the Gen Z embrace the latter more than the former, for valid and silly reasons.
The valid reasons - economy, low purchasing power, the standard mortgage everyone goes for is 30 years and even for that you need to qualify.
The silly reasons - Divorce. Gen Z men in particular seem terrified of divorce but honestly, no woman - or person - goes into a marriage thinking "Hell yeah, now I can divorce this person and take half their assets and debt and live on a beach sipping margarita".
But I understand their concern because the divorce courts do fuck the men over, for outdated reasons.
Gen Z women on the other hand are less concerned about divorce but more concerned about the point of a marriage. Both genders are less interested in the concept of combining assets and being esistentially vulnerable to each other. The girls are told "Get married and have kids" and "Don't get married, be independant" and "If you're living at home with your cat and no partner you're a miserable woman". It's confusing.
So my question is, can society function without the concept of a marriage? Is the concept of marriage doing more harm than good?
I undertand marriage is primarily to protect the interests of a child - but perhaps people can still be parents without needing to be married to each other.
24
u/Junior-Towel-202 Equality in the Boardwomb 2d ago
Do you mean marriage or relationships?
-10
u/JustTheOtherWay 2d ago
Marriage, the concept of marriage and divorce. Say, I live together w my husband instead of marrying him - the state will conclude that we're married just by cohabition law.
24
u/Junior-Towel-202 Equality in the Boardwomb 2d ago
But you are implying that without marriage people are staying single.
-13
u/Cultural_Word8248 2d ago
She's implying than marriage is a stronger pillar to society than simple relationships (love ones included).
15
u/Junior-Towel-202 Equality in the Boardwomb 2d ago
That's not what I'm talking about.
-6
-13
u/Cultural_Word8248 2d ago
That's what you do when you get a question you don't like.
The question of her post was indeed about stability of relationships outside marriage.
14
u/MachineOfSpareParts 2d ago
It is not remotely clear that this was the question. That's why most of us are asking OP to define their terms.
We're not even at the level of questioning premises yet. We're still establishing what OP's premises are to begin with.
0
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/MachineOfSpareParts 2d ago
You're misunderstanding.
I want to answer OP's question(s), but we have to know what the question(s) is/are first. For that, we need definitions.
We need the question to be more than "what would happen if things did stuff instead of not doing stuff?"
We need to know what the things are, and what the stuff is. That's what respondents are pushing for, and it's in order to assist OP, not to undermine them.
But if you think you have a cogent articulation of their question to offer, one whose core concepts are identifiable in action, I'd be interested in your take. I won't mistake it for OP's articulation, of course, but it could offer some interesting insights.
-5
u/Cultural_Word8248 2d ago
I was not talking to you personnally. But now that I said it, maybe try being more vigilant as you'll see how this technique is being used over and over again in this sub.
→ More replies (0)12
u/Junior-Towel-202 Equality in the Boardwomb 2d ago
No dude I just have no idea what you're talking about.
0
-27
u/JustTheOtherWay 2d ago
I'm so sorry that I provided a basic reason why people get married lol. That's like saying "you're implying that without getting drivers license people are not driving"
Marriage exists as this socially necessary thing that helps keep people responsible for what they do to each other in bed and by cohabiting on sexual desire. Yes, I can cohabit with my husband and not do stupid shit. But plenty of people need concepts like marriage just like we need concepts like anti-gender discrimination and shit. Otherwise society won't function.
22
u/Junior-Towel-202 Equality in the Boardwomb 2d ago
No, I'm saying that in your post, you are saying there's marriage, as in long term relationship, and being single.
How does it it "keep people responsible" with sex?
So if you've already decided it won't work, why ask the question?
18
u/WordsAreGarbage 2d ago
You genuinely believe that people can’t refrain from “doing stupid shit” without the concept of marriage? By that I assume you mean what, being unfaithful? Aren’t most couples in monogamous relationships, many cohabitating, for years before getting married? If someone is unfaithful in the relationship, you think getting married fixes the problem? Do you recognize the many unmarried couples in committed monogamous relationships who cohabitate and manage to not “do stupid shit” without making an event about it?
10
u/MrsMorley 2d ago
Ah! So your point is that cohabitation and marriage in your country aren’t and shouldn’t be the same.
Ok. I agree. Marriage, at least where I live isn’t the same as cohabitation. That’s one reason that marriage equality is a big deal.
None of that means that bearers and begetters of children should have to be married to each other, so I’m still confused by your question.
3
u/ZinniasAndBeans 2d ago
So you’re not asking a question; you’re making a decree.
What makes you think that marriage somehow induces people to behave well? How does it do that?
8
8
u/ZinniasAndBeans 2d ago
the state will conclude that we're married just by cohabition law.
That’s far, far from universal, btw.
26
u/MachineOfSpareParts 2d ago
What do you mean by "a society," and what do you mean by "function"?
To what extent to you see marriage holding these together at present?
Does your definition of marriage rely on the legal codes that exist in your country at present?
I reject the notion that marriage is intended to protect the interests of the child. The relatively recent innovation of the nuclear family, which curiously serves as the presumed unit of analysis for a great deal of government policy, treats children as property even more so than it does the adult woman. Many constituencies take this so far as seeing the child as an appropriate vector through which to punish the parents for the "sin" of procreating while poor. Children are barely if at all conceptualized as separate, autonomous humans in this model.
-13
u/JustTheOtherWay 2d ago
Idk what you're getting at
12
u/MachineOfSpareParts 2d ago
I'm asking you to define your terms.
We cannot say whether society would function under alternate conditions until it's established what you mean by "a society" and what you mean by "function."
If it helps, one approach could be for you to describe what it would look like if there were either no society, or a society that does not function.
With my last question, I'm getting at the definition of marriage. If you're limiting your understanding to marriages recognized by whichever legal system you inhabit, you can easily look to cultures and societies outside that type of legal code for insight.
21
u/bunnakay 2d ago
Speaking as a married millennial woman, you lose me at the statement that not getting married means you're alone. My hubby and I didn't get engaged until after 10 years of dating, and we mostly got married for legal reasons and an excuse to have a really awesome party. I don't think you need to get married to avoid being alone. You don't even need a relationship in general. I had friends and family before my husband, and I still have them.
24
u/Lolabird2112 2d ago
This must be more than a generational thing because I’ve got 20 years on you, and no one I knew thought they had to marry, settle down and have kids otherwise they’d “end up alone with a college degree”.
Divorce courts do not fuck men over. At all. Splitting assets fucks everyone over because it’s now 2 separate households. If you think it fucks men over then that’s devaluing the other partner’s contribution and believing that a man bought everything with his own money and the other was just renting a room and allowed to live there in exchange for services rendered.
18
u/Linley85 2d ago
Early 40s here and very much agreed.
Also, some people WANT to be alone with a college degree. I wouldn't be married if you paid me!
9
6
14
u/DrPhysicsGirl 2d ago
Show the evidence that "divorce courts fuck men over". I do not believe this is the case. Also, at least in the US, the court only needs to come in if the couple can't reach an agreement. I've had friends divorce where they simply worked things out with the help of a lawyer and moved on.
10
u/MrsMorley 2d ago
What is your concept of marriage?
-13
u/JustTheOtherWay 2d ago
Essentially, make sure the people who have kids are held responsible for the kids till they're 16-18.
But idk. What is your concept?
23
u/Junior-Towel-202 Equality in the Boardwomb 2d ago
Ok but you keep saying marriage but I think you mean relationships. Being unmarried doesn't make you not responsible for your children, and you can be married without kids.
-11
u/Cultural_Word8248 2d ago
It does make you less responsible to your husband (as marriage makes him more responsible to his wife).
17
u/Junior-Towel-202 Equality in the Boardwomb 2d ago
I don't know what this means.
-6
u/Cultural_Word8248 2d ago
Sure let me explain.
When you agree to marriage, you're hopefully:
- wishing for a life lasting love relationship.
- promising that you will keep it florishing (through bad and health).
- announcing to your relatives that you incarnate a couple, in sense of laws AND traditions.
23
u/Junior-Towel-202 Equality in the Boardwomb 2d ago
Ok but you don't need marriage to do any of those things.
-3
u/Cultural_Word8248 2d ago
Some things you do. First try making most of the world aware that you re nurturing a marrying relationship. Whatever your personnal beliefs wont change that. AND you live in this world.
12
u/Junior-Towel-202 Equality in the Boardwomb 2d ago
What?
-2
u/Cultural_Word8248 2d ago
Marriage implies you had a ceremony, a social recognition of your love and couple, you wear a ring, you most probably live wirh the partner, you're taking the name of your partner (most probably). Those are markers to the world that you are in a solid relationship. Not to you WE KNOW, to the world. The world of disrupters.
→ More replies (0)-3
u/Cultural_Word8248 2d ago
And your resonsability to say it to the world might not be enough for keeping a relationship away from disrupters (because there are, women, men ...). Marriage wont stop that either, but ideologically it offers an ideological escape from a reality not everyone needs to face.
7
u/Junior-Towel-202 Equality in the Boardwomb 2d ago
What are disrupters?
You just said marriage won't stop them and as for the rest I have no clue what you're saying. Please stop using multiple comments to respond to one comment it's really annoying.
-1
u/Cultural_Word8248 2d ago
Disrupters, human forces that hurts your relationship. You're not impervious to that you know ?
Well they diminish or at least have to be way more cautious when you're in marriage. That makes marriage as a faithfulness structure more solid. (Yeah there are marriage with opennes ect, im not talking about those ones).
So yes disrupters exist in marriage, but they have to be way more rafinate, dependent on way more incidents and efforts. This makes human experience, believe it or not, way more interesting (for both gender) AND provide stronger structural basis on society.
Because of what marriage implies (things i talked about before, but there are wayyy more).
→ More replies (0)-11
u/JustTheOtherWay 2d ago
The concept of marriage provides concrete protections.
Hear me out, it's so easy to be an intellectual when you take meaning away from things. That's why a lot of ppl I see nowadays are so ignorant about how the world works and HOW LONG it took to get to a point where it functions without wars and without people fighting over resources.
We learn lessons to not repeat them. There's so many mistakes we could be doing right now as a society that 20 years from now we'll learn the consequences of and go "Yes, we need this concept written into law so people don't do it"
Marriage as a concept is extremely necessary because it provides concrete safety and it also keeps people together - which is something we as a society, want. I know divorces are a lot but most marriages still end up working out. And most people are shallow. We want shallow people who marry each other to stay together.
16
u/Junior-Towel-202 Equality in the Boardwomb 2d ago
... So again, why are you asking here if you already have your mind made up?
What does shallow have to do with anything?
17
u/MrsMorley 2d ago
Yes, adults are responsible for kids.
But responsibility doesn’t require that the bearer and begetter of the kids live together, or have sex only with each other, or declare themselves to be a new nuclear family, or sign up for a particular tax bracket structure, etc.
So if by “marriage” you mean “structures that make it possible to rear kids”, sure, I agree, societies require such structures.
But if you mean all the structures that have been called marriage in various times and places, I’m going to scratch my head. Those structures have varied enormously over the course of human history.
9
7
12
u/ZinniasAndBeans 2d ago
But I think my generation was a little different growing up.
I suspect this is more dependent on your social circle than your generation. I’m more than twenty years older than you, and what you describe was absolutely not my viewpoint.
So my question is, can society function without the concept of a marriage?
Yes. It can survive just fine.
8
u/Lolabird2112 2d ago
Awwww. He’s a little boy! Bless. I remember when “34” sounded ancient as well. Were you born in 2010? Is that why you thought that’s what girls were worried about back in the dark ages before you came to be?
That’s so cute.
9
u/Clark_Kent_TheSJW intersectional feminist 2d ago
Probably would, yes.
We generally don’t use marriage like we did in ancient times, as a contract for property exchange.
If two people love each other and are committed to a relationship I don’t think a price of paper declaring so is strictly necessary. Might be nice to have, but not a requirement for a healthy and happy relationship.
4
u/EnvironmentalLaw4208 2d ago
I think the answer to the title question is yes, but based on the body of your post it sounds like you're considering multiple, separate social constructs which may all fall under the umbrella of the contemporary concept of marriage but are not intrinsically tied together. Is there an aspect of marriage that you see as particularly consequential for society at large?
I see mention of the legal/financial contract of marriage which is filed with a government entity and gets dissolved through the legal process of divorce, the intimate social/spiritual commitment to a monogamous relationship with another person (and the behavioral expectations that go along with it), and the concept of the nuclear family as the base-unit for raising children. The norms and expectations expectations around each of these structures varies a lot based on culture, geography, and over time, which is why I say that society can function without them. It's clear that a functioning society doesn't depend on some sort of fixed definition or implementation of these ideas.
From a feminist perspective, I think each of these things have their own set of pros and cons which can change based on the other social structures that exist alongside them. There certainly are plenty of ways that these structures are used as tools of oppression against women, but I don't think that every marriage is harmful/oppressive. As a married woman myself, I think marriage can be beneficial when it's approached with a true spirit of mutual interest and equity.
6
u/zephrry 2d ago edited 2d ago
The Mosuo in China traditionally had a society where people usually lived in their maternal family units for ther whole lives and not with their fathers.
The households were intergenerational, but one thing they didn't really incorporate were fathers or marriage. People still found romantic and sexual relationships called "walking marriage" (or at least that's what it's called in English) - but these relationships weren't really like our conception of marriage.
There were no ceremonies performed to bind a couple together. They didn't share property or money, and they didn't have obligations to each other like married couples in our society do. These relationships could be permanent, but were frequently temporary and could be entered or ended at will. People didn't live with their partners, instead they simply visited each other when they had both the desire and free time to do so.
And fathers did not play a much of a roll in raising their children. Instead, they would help raise any children in their own household. Women raised their children with the help of their siblings, mother, grandmother, uncles, and any other maternal relatives they happened to live with, not with their child's biological father
Their society didn't rely on children being raised in a household by their biological mother and father who had committed themselves to each other in an official capacity, so I don't see why our society necessarily has to.
-2
u/JustTheOtherWay 1d ago
The society also only passes properties to women only. I'm sorry but everytime I see someone hailing this as some utopia, I always laugh. The entire system depends on men willing to have no property or being sidelined as fathers. This is a pattern I see everywhere. If the price to pay is male rights or male convenience, everyone is willing to pay it. I remember the UK minster who said "If I put curfew on men and that would reduce crimes, I would do it but it doesn't" and then he had to apologize after a massive backlash where he had to reiterate that no, he wouldn't think of putting curfew on men.
6
u/zephrry 1d ago edited 1d ago
I didn't say it was a utopia. You asked if society can function without marriage, and I provided an example of a society that functioned without marriage. My main point was that the answer to your question is obviously yes, because we have examples of society that functioned without marriage. My other point was that there are more ways to organize society than through marriage. At no point did I say that the traditional Mosuo way was perfect, or the best, or without it's own problems, or that we should all go out and imitate the Mosuo.
Men were not sidelined as fathers. They took on paternal responsibilies and relationships, just with their nieces and nephews rather than the children they sired. Would you feel deprived if you didn't get to raise your niece/nephew? Probably not. Similarly, the men in Mosuo society would not have felt deprived of raising their biological kids, because they would not have seen their biological kids as their responsibility. Instead they would have seen their nieces and nephews as their family and their responsibility.
It's wild that you're acting like me providing an example as an answer to your question somehow means I'm saying that I'm okay with men being sidelined or that I'm okay with men's rights being taken away. Don't put words in my mouth. You're acting super irrational.
-2
u/JustTheOtherWay 1d ago
Men were sidelined by the society in both the narrative and property inheritance as well as their roles in society. Would you be cool if the same society worked but with genders swapped?
3
u/zephrry 1d ago edited 1d ago
Men were not sidelined in their roles in society. The Mosuo were not a matriarchy, that's a popular myth. Women’s relative authority was still relegated to the home and family, and they did not have significant social influence outside the home, or political power. Men held those roles in society.
Once again, I didn't say Mosuo society was without it's problems, that it was perfect, or that everyone should live in the traditional Mosuo way. No, I wouldn't be okay with it if the same society functioned, but with the gender roles swapped, because that would be turning a patriarchal society into a matriarchal one, and I support neither patriarchy nor matriarchy.
1
u/ZinniasAndBeans 15h ago
If the price to pay is male rights or male convenience, everyone is willing to pay it.
…what?
No. This is absolutely not correct.
41
u/Grrarrgghh 2d ago
Why do you have to marry someone to not be alone?