2007-03-18 09:28:12 · 12 answers · asked by Optimistic 6 in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
If it wasn't, it sure functioned like it in many cultures across many millennia.
Then again, it does play to women's desire for a sense of security in a relationship and many of the proponents are women.
What it did functionally, and sometimes does now, is reduce women's choice and ability to effectively make anything more than an initial agreement (if that) to a marriage and guarantee almost all socially functional and economically viable men a mate in spite of behavioral or genetic fitness to reproduce.
With women generating their own income and divorce being easier to get, it does seem to be losing some of its power though. But until women are able to support themselves (and their children, if any) throughout their lifespan on their own, it's hard to say they're being treated fairly within relationships.
So, whether it was the man's idea or the woman's, it is a behavioral control mechanism that disproportionately affects women...
2007-03-18 19:47:56 · answer #1 · answered by Deathbunny 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would like to think that it is a concept that solidifies a family. A concept which raises the security and longevity of the family. I believe that a solid marriage does not emphasize one gender over the other but succeeds by stressing the importance of both genders contributions to the success of the family.
2007-03-18 09:34:30 · answer #2 · answered by redwinegirl 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Quite the opposite, it is an institution that makes sure a man is around to help and support a woman while she is busy rearing the children. Gradually it is beeing replaced by monetary contribution enforced by law since a lot of women have no intention to keep the father of their children around.
2007-03-18 10:39:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
When you look at the origins of marriage, it appears that wives were property like cattle or pawns to stablish power in a family. They were always under a man's or father's control.
2007-03-18 13:23:06 · answer #4 · answered by whrldpz 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
little ones are people who administration the marriage. as quickly as they're born, the two mom and father replace their lives to healthful the life of the youngsters. Their schedule and selection making adapts to the desires of their baby. the excellent international revolves around the infants!
2016-10-19 00:28:24 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The certificate that a couple sign during nuptial doesn't state that man controls woman. Man's control over woman depends on the fact that woman let it happen.
2007-03-18 23:02:11 · answer #6 · answered by lanisoderberg69 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it was there would be a hell of a lot of unmarried women out there. Marriage is all about family and thats all. Or it should be if it isn't.
2007-03-18 13:45:27 · answer #7 · answered by Becky 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If anything it is the other way around. Why do you think a woman gets over half the assets and the kids in a divorce?
Why the need to blame it on patriarchy anyway?
That's a reason men and some women don't like feminism: you always blame it on the men.
2007-03-18 09:35:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
actually it is a system designed to protect property and ensure the welfare of children. Even matriarchal societies have marriage.
2007-03-18 12:06:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. In fact it was God who instituted it. Women were made to be a help-meet for man (not a slave).
2007-03-18 09:51:51 · answer #10 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋