If marriage is a construct of the patriarchy, like my professors say, why is it then that men are less enthusiastic about the notion of marriage and weddings? The only men who care about weddings are paid to plan them and are very gay.
If marriage is a patriarchal construct, then why do more women care more about marriage and weddings? -
- Thread starter IAmNotAlpharius
- Start date
-
Intermittent Denial of Service attack is causing downtime. Looks like a kiddie 5 min rental. Looking into some solutions.
Solution
Seems like over half of the things invented for women was by other women to make them miserable, so this seems plausible to me.
That is not surprising since I have two of them.
That also explains why so many women are obsessed with having kids, and openly mock women that can't or won't have kids for being "barren" or "selfish".
Women like the pomp and the ceremony. Men just want to fuck and get it over with.
Because marriage protects women
StraightShooter2
kiwifarms.net
"Patriarchal construct" is a nonsensical term (even "matriarchal" societies have weddings and marriages, as is easily historically documented).
On some level, people joining together in marriage or as couples is innate (for obvious biological or social reasons which are easily documented in animals as well as humans) - specific laws and traditions surrounding the unions are "constructed" or developed over time, but even if all current laws and traditions disappeared, people would still enter de-facto marriages or unions. (Much as how even in societies with no formal written law or even written languages, people still live as couples and have children).
As far as actual modern laws in regards to marriage, they developed over time, and some of them may have had "patriarchal" ideas which haven't entirely caught up to contemporary realities and circumstances (e.x. such as presuming that the husband was generally the primary income earner and/or the mother was the primary caretaker of the children - or emphasizing the importance of the husband's family name in regards to heirs and inheritance - something which likely would have been very important in aristocracies, when wealth and political authority was primarily inherited through birth rather than earned).
-
For example, when some people ambiguously complain that "child support and/or alimony rulings by courts favor women in divorce settlements" - this might be an example of remnants of "patriarchal thinking" (Some idiots even incorrectly blame "feminism" for this, unless by "feminism" they just mean "anything a woman does or says that I don't like").
If anything it's more "patriarchal" thinking than "feminist" thinking, since it's predicated on tending to presume by default that the husband is the primary income earner, and that the woman is more financially dependent on him, even though in reality, a working woman can often earn more than the husband.
And while I don't entirely agree with the OP regarding men and women's personal feelings about marriage - it could be since the actual wedding or marital contract represents ideas of "security", which is something that appeals more strongly to women than to men.
Last edited:
Feminists are actually wrong about what marriage means in Western nations like the US. Marriage itself may seem more patriarchal on the surface with the woman traditionally changing her last name to her husband’s and such, but with how divorce courts seem to favor women over men, as well as women instigating divorces more often than men do, women seem to have much less to lose getting married than men do. This is of course based on Western ideas of marriage and not those of other nations where divorce would be practically outlawed, women having to have dowries or at least something to offer up in marriage, on top of being expected to perform the traditional feminine roles of doing all the cooking and cleaning. This is in stark contrast as to how marriage is viewed in the United States. With women having more to gain with getting married than men do, on top of not being expected to do certain things that would be required in other nations, it’s no wonder women in countries like the US would obsess over marriage and weddings more. My theory isn’t fool proof though and it is heavy in generalization. It’s also late at night and then tend to go on weird tangents as well, so feel free to poke holes in it 
.
.
They say that BS because the powers that shouldn't be condition them to believe that BS.
Seems said tyrants want to reduce the population to increase their control.
Also evil doesn't like marriage and family.
StraightShooter2
kiwifarms.net
No, I think it's totally reasonable to "want to reduce" the amount of dysfunctional and/or abuse families, or impoverished families that really totally on the dole and have no desire to work and/or improve their situation (since anyone can produce a kid, and it takes more responsibility to get a driver's license).
Look at stuff like "Shanny4Christ" if you don't believe me - don't think it's evil or tyrannical to assert that some people would be better off not having children or being parents.
Because weddings are all about the woman and women are attention whores.
Similar threads
- Solved
