Polygamy is better for women and children????

[fed_up_mother]

ARRRGGGGHHHHHHH

I can't believe patriarchal crap like that is actually used as an argument at DU.

Rant off.

[izquierdista]

1. For the very primitive, it is.

Often in primitive tribes, if a man dies, one of his already married brothers can claim the widow and her children. There is no lack of ingenuity in primitive tribes when environmental forces tilt the sex ratio away from serial monogamy.

The key here is fundamentalist = VERY primitive.

[fed_up_mother]

14. Agree with that.

But are we going forward or backward?

[hlthe2b]

2. ?????????????????????????

got a link?

[fed_up_mother]

8. here

The statement was that marriage protects women and children, but it was made in such a way to defend polygamy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3320569&mesg_id=3321570

[moez]

3. Personally, I have no problems with it....

If all of the parties involved in the marriage are consenting adults... they should be able to do what they want.

I don't know if it's better, worse or the same for the men or women involved. But, then again, it's none of my business.

[fed_up_mother]

6. I have no problem with consenting adults living in whatever arrangements they want

(And for the record, I'm pro-gay marriage.)

However, as policy in this country, I think legalizing polygamy would be a HUGE step backwards for women. It's no accident that women's rights have advanced farther in nations that don't allow polygamy.

[moez]

7. I don't care if

it's one woman and multiple men or vice versa... As long as it's their choice to enter into the relationship, more power to them.

I don't see how allowing women to make their own choices is a step backwards for women (HUGE or otherwise).

[moez]

12. For that matter.....

If 25 year old Tommy want to marry his 21 year old sister Sarah.... more power to them!

[fed_up_mother]

13. Did you leave off the sarcasm tag?

Just wonderin'....

[moez]

15. Nope...

Why the hell do I care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home?

[fed_up_mother]

43. So...society should promote incest as well.

Have I stumbled into a parallel universe today?

Because what we are talking about is marriage.

Incest, too, heh?

Damn. Freeps ought to be getting a kick out of this thread. :(

[havocmom]

4. To be fair, polygamy, in and of its self is not really the problem. Depends how it is practiced

Polygamy COULD also mean women could have multiple partners. Hey, that might work for some.

Also, it COULD happen in egalitarian societies and not be about holding one group down. In that case, I think it could be a healthy practice. If everybody really DID take care of each other and all the children, I would have no problem with that either.

There are many works of fiction, and science fiction, that use polygamous cultures as a vehicle to show that OUR way does not have to be the ONLY way. Lots of theories of how polygamy could be practiced other than the Fundy Mormon Cult version. 'Polygamy' is NOT just that one version. 'Polygamy' in and of its self is neutral. How any society carries out traditions is what creates value, good or bad.

It isn't the from of marriage that is the problem, it is the PRACTICE of marriage with one gender dominate that screws things up. And THAT is not so much about marital traditions as it is about societal traditions. If the society holds down part of its members, most, if not all, of its traditions will be shown to be unhealthy. It's the HOW that makes for the problems.

There was a time in my life when more than one partners would have been MUCH better for me.

[fed_up_mother]

9. Having more than one sexual partner at a time

is still quite different from the practice of polygamy. College kids/young adults tend to go from multiple partners to "one" - for a reason.

You know, sometimes I think we want to be so open-minded that our brains have fallen out.

[havocmom]

19. Your library card is your friend. Polygamy is NOT what that cult practices

It is just one aspect of it.

Not letting new info into one's brain WILL cause atrophy and lead one to think they know what they don't seem to know at all.

Just because someone does not agree with your very narrow view of a very broad subject, one may have had their brains fall out? :wtf: That is not a feminist view. And it does nothing to advance serious considerations about Women's Rights.

Learning something about a topic you do an OP on will not likely cause your brain to fall out.

[fed_up_mother]

11. Works of fiction are just that - fiction.

:)

[iamjoy]

17. Not Just A Story Though

Fiction is not just entertainment. It can be used to spark debate. Take science fiction and forget some of the flashy technology (although that too may have its uses). It presents an alien culture (or human culture in the future) and elements of that culture mirror ours in a way that makes us reconsider our own world. Or, it shows a way society could be in a way that most people don't talk about or consider.

For example in Ursula LeGuin's novel The Left Hand of Darkness she presents a culture in which the ultra wealthy are not taxed. The idea is that hard work should be rewarded. However, when they die, they can't leave their money to anyone, the government gets it. (talk about a "death tax" :-) ) The other thing is, children are raised in communal settings so that everyone has equal opportunity. Of course that's fiction. But, she doubtless borrowed aspects of cultures around the world. One can also use it as a starting point for debate about taxes and opportunities in our society. How would such a system be better than what we currently have, how would it be worse. Can we take the "good" of it and toss the "bad" or will it only work as a package?

So, read a science fiction story in which a society practices plural marriage - a liberated polygamy. I believe this is the case in Robert Heinlen's Friday. Can we have such thing in our society? The paradigm is that polygamy is always used for men to collect or keep a harem of women. Does it have to be that way or can it be more of a communal, shared approach to an expanded family? Is a monogamous traditional marriage necessary because it is human nature to be jealous and possessive? Or are those behaviors learned and something we can overcome? Would we be better off if we did?

[fed_up_mother]

22. I absolutely don't think human nature learns to be jealous or possessive

Your fiction is still fiction. Every society that advances advances to the point of monogomy. Women's issues are not in any way enhanced when we return to polygamy. Only in science fiction is it the reverse.

[iamjoy]

31. Where's Your Imagination?

What if a woman had multiple husbands?

What if all parties had to agree on the partners?

What if you have three in a marriage and big decisions are voted on with the majority ruling? Maybe there'd be a lot fewer arguments without it having to be the man ruling, which is how many believe it should be in traditional, monogamous marriages.

Just because polygamy always has been used to oppress women doesn't mean it always will.

"Some people see things that are and ask, Why? Some people dream of things that never were and ask, Why not?"

[fed_up_mother]

34. A few women practicing polyandry

Doesn't mean it should be legalized.

Have you actually examine the cultures where women have multiple husbands? It's for the men's benefit, generally.

it's not going to happen on anything but a miniscule scale, because that's not human nature.

I have an imagination.

However, I also have PLENTY of common sense.

Study the cultures where polyandry is practiced. Even those who practice it for particular reasons, say that it is generally hard to maintain. However, polygamy has been practiced much, much more, and we see what happens to women time and time again.

You know, kids who aren't vaccinated in our society are generally protected because the vast majority of children are vacinnated. Women who choose to live in thte rare polygamous, suburban relationship because most of society doesn't accept it. They may be shunned by a few, but they still have rights.

However, when most of society is not vaccinated, many more children are at risk. When most of society comes to accept polygamy as normal, many more women will suffer. Over time, women will suffer. And so will poor and middle class men. Therefore, it's not really something society should encourage.

[havocmom]

18. And much is based on REALITY. FACT: polygamy is NOT what the cult practices

It is a manifestation of what they practice, which is subjugation of females and children.

There are plenty of cultures that practice polygamy differently. Some are quite beneficial to all parties involved.

Read some non fiction sometime. ;) Anthropology is a wonderful thing and LOTS of fiction writers are students of it as part of their research for their fiction.

[fed_up_mother]

23. I have read "some" anthropology.

The cultures you speak of are very far and few between, and there are generally quite a few "caveats" thrown in that makes those cultures not quite what we think they are.

And those cultures are...PRIMITIVE regardless of how egalitarian they might seem ON THE SURFACE.

[fed_up_mother]

28. There are even some cultures that practice polyandry

But not because of egalitarianism. . Brothers share one woman so the family property is not partitioned off so quickly into separate estates, for example.

Even in this case, it is for benefit of men and property. Of course, they could always farm out one of the brothers to another family without sons, or make a couple of them celibate monks.

When you take a deeper look...

[no_hypocrisy]

5. What's the difference between women being regarded as the property of their

husbands and/or fathers in a polygamous religion and the fundamentalist Muslim model of family?

[fed_up_mother]

16. Legalizing polygamy in this country will be

one giant leap for MAN kind.

And a huge step backwards for women.

Note to self: Don't open your mind so much that your brains fall out.

[havocmom]

20. The difference? One night on, six nights off v on call 24/7/365

;)

[fed_up_mother]

24. Wow.

All I can say is that

either

1) I enjoy sex a lot more than you.

and/or

2) Your sexual partners have all been jerks.

My sympathy for your situation.

[havocmom]

26. OR you make a lot of assumptions & never saw the movie

Which is too bad as it is pretty funny

[fed_up_mother]

29. I guess my sense of humor about sex isn't that funny

I'm never "on call" although it's a shame that so many women talk as if they are.

Your post was nothing that hasn't been written before by many women, and unfortunately, they weren't being funny.

[Warpy]

10. Only when the wives get veto power over adding new wives

When all the power resides with the patriarch, the system is horrible for everyone but him.

I knew one polygamous family a long time ago. The wives got together and threw the patriarch out on his arse. They kept living with each other because that part of the arrangement suited them just fine.

Of course, all participants were grownups and reasonably well educated. They hadn't been raised on an FLDS booty farm.

[fasttense]

21. Polygamy is dangerous to a society.

It throws off the balance of men and women. Every single society that has or will allow and encourage polygamy, ends up treating women like property. You and I can think of many situations where women do not have to be property in order for polygamy to flourish. But in the real world, polygamy has never happened on a vast scale without turning women into property and very frequently sexualizing little girls (and often boys too).

Polygamy keeps the young men from having wives. In a polygamist society the rich old men have most of all the wives. Rich men's sons can have wives, but poor and middle class men must make their fortune before they can have a go at having a group of female slaves, I mean wives. If their is little opportunity for poor and middle class men to make fortunes, their is little opportunity for them to be able to afford wives. These men get restless and angry when they can't have a family or normal sex lives. They start wars and terrorize others when they see no hope of becoming successful married men.

Unless the population of males is artificially reduced through war, enslavement, disease, or banishment there is a great risk of a general uprising among young men in a polygamous society. These old men in the mormon sect are able to force their young men out of their society and artificially keep the male population low and prevent a natural uprising of their young men.

By the way multiple husbands is usually referred to as polyandry.

[fed_up_mother]

25. Geesh someone who knows something about the actual practice of

polygamy...as opposed to a few years having fun, liberated sex in a college dorm or on a commune or romanticizing other more primitive societies. :)

Your points are exactly why polygamy should never be legalized. It's very dangerous for society practiced on any scale other than a few individuals who are "doing their own thing." (And we should continue to let them "without" benefit of legal marriage.)

Just the lopsided number of males to females in China will cause much social unrest - including kidnapping and slavery of women. It's already happening.
:puke: :puke: :puke: Legitimizing polygamy is not necessary to advance gay rights, although I suspect some people support it for exactly that reason.

And, sorry, sometimes we do things for the betterment of society - not individuals. When we go to single payer, and you MUST belong to the system and can't go outside of the system - it's because it will protect society as a whole.. Sometimes, that's just the way it works. Not legalizing polygamy is one of those things that protects society - especially women.

[havocmom]

27. Or just agrees wuth you

Knowledge does not = agreeing with you. Sorry.


Again: it is how it is PRACTICED that can be bad, or good.

[fed_up_mother]

30. And some answers are more rooted in reality than others...

Not science fiction, ifs, ands, or buts, and questionable anthropological interpretation.

Again, individuals can live as they damn well please, but some things are NOT good for society, and should not be promoted. I'm sorry, but the record is pretty clear that polygamy practiced across an entire culture is not good for that culture. Practiced here and there, of course, due to the shortage of women.

[moez]

32. It's funny

I've heard fundie freepers using the EXACT same logic to explain why gay marriage should not be allowed....

hmmmmm..... funny how that works.

[fed_up_mother]

33. Where's the record that gay marriage is inherently bad for society?

Other than the fact that they don't like it, there's no record.

You can not say the same for polygamy. The record is quite evident for all to see who wish to see. But my gosh, let's just prove them right that gay marriage is going to lead to polygamy. haha Apparently, the fundies are right about that!

[moez]

35. Oh... sorry.

I must have missed the scientific study that you cited that says that polygamy is "inherently bad for society". Silly me, it sure sounded like your opinion based on your vast research on the issue...

Beyond that, I have to admit that I don't care if we "prove them right". I do care that we allow consenting adults to pursue lifestyles that make them happy - ESPECIALLY when those lifestyle choices are nobody else's business.

[fed_up_mother]

36. They aren't my business

And you can refuse to see all the evidence you want, but that doesn't mean it should be legalized. Most women realize it will be very bad for them.

[moez]

38. Do you refuse to see that it could work the other way

or are you just obtuse? Can you wrap your mind around the fact that it could be one woman to many men just as easily?

Either way - what's bad for women is telling them how they should live their lives and with whom they should share their love.

[fed_up_mother]

39. Do you refuse to acknowledge common sense?

Just because it will work for a few and DOES work for a few, doesn't mean it could even come close to working for most. However, the evidence IS there that polygamy is very bad for women - culturally speaking. Human rights speaking. Even if the evidence wasn't there, we could surely imagine many scenarios where it would become quite difficult for women - like in China.

Sure, we all say that fewer women will raise women's status, but that's not how it's working so far. Instead, women are being kidnapped and held captive.

Lovely.

[fed_up_mother]

41. By the way

some societies are accepting of polyandry - for benefit of men, power, property.

Where society approves of polygamy/polyandry it is almost always to benefit the powerful MALE.

That's very much different than one woman and three guys doing their own thing in the 'burbs. Fine. However, when societies accept and approve, it lowers the status of women.

Science fiction notwithstanding, of course.

And by the way, in those societies, there's lots of problems with polyandry. Seems even men who resort to it, don't particularly like sharing their woman.

[fed_up_mother]

37. I don't know of a "study" that says slavery is bad

but I've pretty much concluded that it is based on the vast evidence that's there to see.

How 'bout you?

[moez]

40. Wow!

Polygamy equals slavery..... that's something. I am so glad that I've gotten to bask in the glow of your sociological wisdom today.

[fed_up_mother]

42. Examples do not EQUATE equality

Silly you!

I would have thought you knew that. :)

However.... DO you need a study to show that slavery is bad?

....

I thought so.

[gaspee]

44. Read

Something about the lives of woman in traditional polygamous culture and, hey, whaddaya know! Polygamy (as traditionally practiced) is *very* much like slavery for the women involved. For the men, Paradise, for the women, slavery and subjugation. I'm not saying it *has* to be like that, but huMAN nature seems to make it like that. Kind of like communism, in a way - in theory, it sounds AOK, but it loses some shine when flawed people with a thirst for power try to implement it.

I suggest you start you reading with Hirsi Ali's memoir "Infidel" - it's very accessible to a modern Western reader.

And while I'm not so in love with her right wingish policies toward muslim immigrants who refuse to assimilate into western countries and her association with a certain think-tank, the woman has good reason to be very critical of the culture she was raised in. It's personal for her, so she has every right to despise them.

[fed_up_mother]

45. thank you for that.

HuMAN nature. haha

Yep. :)

[Lyric]

46. After reading the responses in this thread, let me say this.

Marriage is a civil right; granted, it's a right that's currently being denied to all but one particular "group" (heterosexual monogamists) but it's still a right. There is absolutely zero evidence to support the claim that polygamy could/would be dangerous for women in a modern, civilized, secular western nation. Comparing the idea of legal American polygamy with what's happened in other cultures at other times is absurd; such a comparison is the absolute essence of the "apples and oranges" metaphor. Considering the circumstances of our government, it's reasonable to believe that we *do* have the ability to create legal polygamy in a way that won't be oppressive.

If we *can* do so, then it seems only fair that we *should*. Fear of possible consequences is not a good enough reason to deny people their civil rights. If we accept marriage as a civil right, then it IS a civil right...and placing restrictions upon it should be done only if it can be proven that the nation WILL suffer as a result. There is no such proof--not for gay marriage, and not for polygamy. There is only fearful conjecture based on other cultures and ancient history. The fear about disrupting the gender ratio is ridiculous; it assumes that legalizing polygamy will cause an enormous chunk of the population (enough to negatively impact the gender ratio) to choose polygamy over monogamy. That's as ridiculous as the meme that legal gay marriage will suddenly cause a large chunk of society to "go gay". If you aren't already polygamous by nature, then you aren't going to marry polygamously.

For the tiny proportion of people who *are* poly by nature, legalizing polygamy would help them gain legal status and rights. It wouldn't change their living situation. In fact, for practical purposes polygamy *already* exists, just as gay marriage already exists. The only thing missing are the signatures on a dotted line. We aren't battling oppression by keeping it illegal; the oppression already exists, and only the passage of an Equal Rights Amendment has a chance of stopping it. Making it legal just gives the right to things like hospital visitation, inheritance, etc.--something that every person in a committed relationship (especially one with children) deserves.

I used to oppose polygamy, but I've wandered away from that view. It was hypocritical. If I believe that civil marriage is indeed a contract, it's selfish of me to criticize the right-wing for wanting to reserve it for "only straights" while pooh-poohing at the polys and telling them that it should only be for the monogamous. It's none of my business what kind of contracts other people choose to make with each other. Our society needs to move away from viewing civil marriage as anything BUT a contract. It's not holy, it's not sacred, and it's not a prize that only certain, pre-approved people should be allowed to have. That kind of view infuriates me, truly.

[fed_up_mother]

47. If just five percent of the men in this country make polygamy their "choice"

that will upset the ratio of men to women pretty badly. BAD FOR SOCIETY.

And there would be a lot more polygamy than polyandry. (I'm talking about actual, legal marriage.) I don't see how anyone could disagree with that. Or have we all lost our last shred of common sense?

"For the tiny proportion of people who *are* poly by nature" HUH?

I think MANY people can have a relationship with more than one person at a time. Affairs? Adultery? People choosing to live in polygamous relationships? However, that is not the same thing as being bi or gay or transgendered. I think it's a huge mistake to couch this in terms of civil rights, considering the fight for their civil rights that is being waged. Or do polygamists realize at five years old or ten years old or fifteen years old that they want to be married to four other people?

You can be furious all you want, but legalizing polygamy will send more democrats over to the republican party than any thing this party could ever do. You'll never convince the vast majority of women - not to mention many men - that polygamy is a "civil right." The vast majority of women don't even want to think about the possibility of accepting another wife...or else. Ugh

Sorry.