Saints Alive Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 Tangent from another thread. Is polygamy fundamentally sexist? I don't see how having multiple wives, assuming each is a willing partner and treated equally, is fundamentally sexist. Or at least not any more sexist that monogamy. Is the whole argument really just that the man has more than one wife and the wife can only have one husband?
swfarnsworth Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 I was watching a documentary where sister wives in Utah before the Manifesto were trying to defend their ability to stay sister wives because having sister wives gave them so much extra free time.inb4 "CFR, please".Either way, if all the wives are consenting (and not brainwashed by the compound), then I don't see a problem with it; even the present practice of it. When it's about satisfying some guy's sexual desires and not him caring for all of them, my okayness with it stops. If you go seven or eight generations back on my male-only line, he had two English wives and two Scottish wives. When I die, my second order of business (after asking what the point of the priesthood ban on blacks was) will be to ask them how they managed to work that out.
EllenMaksoud Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 I was in a situation where polygamy was practiced around me. None of the women liked it. I was Muslim. 1
swfarnsworth Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 I was in a situation where polygamy was practiced around me. None of the women liked it. I was Muslim.That's interesting. I've never met an ex-Muslim convert.
Saints Alive Posted October 7, 2012 Author Posted October 7, 2012 I was in a situation where polygamy was practiced around me. None of the women liked it. I was Muslim.was that due to the polygamy or because of how they were treated in the marriage (if you can call it that).
cursor Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 was that due to the polygamy or because of how they were treated in the marriage (if you can call it that).What do you know about their particular situation ("if you can call it that")? Clearly you're making unjustifiable and uninformed judgments about how the women might have been treated. Might this [unreasonably] have been because they were "muslim?"
MorningStar Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 I think the most practical reason women wouldn't have multiple husbands is because you wouldn't know who the father of your child was and back then there weren't tests to prove who it was. On the other hand, it would be pretty nice to have multiple bread winners.
brainburn Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 It's clearly sexist in strict terms, but if you're willing to consider the LDS gender paradigm inherently sexist... I don't see it as very significant compared to other examples of "sexism".If everyone is consenting, why does it matter?
Calm Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 If everyone is consenting and is equal in decisionmaking power, you have multiple women vs. one man. Perhaps it is the man who is less powerful in that situation. 2
The Nehor Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 Marriage is fundamentally sexist in that we discriminate between the sexes when we choose who to marry.
MormonMason Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 I was in a situation where polygamy was practiced around me. None of the women liked it. I was Muslim.I have seen how women are treated in some communities. I would not blame you for your feelings if you lived in one of those.
MormonMason Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 If everyone is consenting and is equal in decisionmaking power, you have multiple women vs. one man. Perhaps it is the man who is less powerful in that situation.Sometimes, if you read enough journal accounts, it seems to me that more men complained at times than women. And, if there are multiple cases of PMS every month--I shudder to think....
Calm Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 Especially since women tend to synchronise their cycles as they live together or so I've heard.
Saints Alive Posted October 7, 2012 Author Posted October 7, 2012 What do you know about their particular situation ("if you can call it that")? Clearly you're making unjustifiable and uninformed judgments about how the women might have been treated. Might this [unreasonably] have been because they were "muslim?" I have been to those countries where muslims practice polygamy and I know they treat their women as little more the brood mares. One village elder told me, "women are for babies, boys are for pleasure." I cant even think of an example were a woman was treated well enough that I would feel comfortable with my wife in that situation. I don't blame the muslim religion for this, but I do blame the culture of the countries that allow muslim polygamy.
Bikeemikey Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 Tangent from another thread. Is polygamy fundamentally sexist? I don't see how having multiple wives, assuming each is a willing partner and treated equally, is fundamentally sexist. Or at least not any more sexist that monogamy. Is the whole argument really just that the man has more than one wife and the wife can only have one husband?From a perspective of current social mores LDS polygamy would likely be considered (at least by the majority of non-LDS people I associate with) based on the larger theological premise behind our understanding of salvation. For many of these individuals they can take it to the extreme view that family is sexist as only women can carry children, however, lets not get distracted by this.A seemingly present theological underpinning of polygamy is that procreation of children (in greater volumes) is linked to our Celestial heritage/inheritance. Many in the early church (and some LDS now) adhered to the idea that polygamy was essential for Celestial inheritance, otherwise how would a Man/future God produce enough off-spring. Tangentially this also seemed to be coupled with the idea that Spirit children were produced in a similar fashion to our earthly children.So, if polygamy reduces women to a procreation engine in order to help men/God's populate their creations, it would seem to be sexist.I don't think any of this is true however, but that has been the discussion with many friends who a vehemently opposed to polygamy, interestingly some of them more opposed to LDS-polygamy over other practices of polygamy.
JamesJ Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 Polygamy, polyandry, and same sex marriage are "Acceptable" TO GOD. Who are we to judge another person's heart? ONLY GOD CAN JUDGE a person's heart and true intents.- James Johnsonwww.theChurchOfLatterDays.org
Bikeemikey Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 Polygamy, polyandry, and same sex marriage are "Acceptable" TO GOD. Who are we to judge another person's heart? ONLY GOD CAN JUDGE a person's heart and true intents.- James Johnsonwww.theChurchOfLatterDays.orgJust because God is the only person capable to judging doesn't entail that all things we don't know how to judge are acceptable unto God...
Carborendum Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 Well, I haven't read any of the journal accounts as referred to earlier. I did read Saints by Orson Scott Card. Apparently, it is a true story as recounted by his great-great (so many times) grandmother. He took some editorial license (point of view, phrasing, description of circumstances, etc.) to turn it into a novel. But the substance of the story and events contained therein are 100% factual.According to his grandmother, she never felt like a piece of flesh as a result of polygamy. But she was unfortunately put under the knife of an insidious doctor who took away her ability to bear children. I believe he was excommunicated.If you read the whole story, she truly had many horrific things happen in her life. But her life among the Saints (even as a plural wife) was a haven for her.She also describe how many women were ok with it. It was apparently excecuted in a very practical manner. You have to understand that most of the men (not just women) of the era were very prudish in reality, not just in public image. The men thought it was offensive to think they'd need a second wife or more. Such men don't necessarily go into these situations because of lusts of the body. Although some were excommunicated over improper application of the principle, most men of the day were quite proper.Joseph was married to the Orson's grandmother for many months (years?) before they ever shared a bed. Neither of them felt it "appropriate" to simply jump into bed with someone you barely knew.Another couple in the book was mentioned. The husband alternated bedrooms between the two wives from the start. The first wife had some jealousy creep in. But the husband told her that they hadn't actually committed the act because it just wasn't the nature of their relationship. The second wife confirmed this. It is difficult for people of our generation to comprehend adult males in the company of adult females to withold themselves in this manner. But it was real. If it is ever practiced again, I think a lot of men who were raised in today's highly sexed society are going to be very disappointed. In fact, I believe many will end up getting excommunicated over it because they think it is about lust rather than God's command.They may also find themselves quite outnumbered (as Calmoriah stated).
Carborendum Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 Especially since women tend to synchronise their cycles as they live together or so I've heard.My wife said that from sharing a bedroom with a sister to having roommates in college, this was true wherever she went.
rongo Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 If everyone is consenting and is equal in decisionmaking power, you have multiple women vs. one man. Perhaps it is the man who is less powerful in that situation.Right after graduating from BYU, I rented and sold motorhomes in Salt Lake. 80% of our business came through German, Swiss, and Austrian travel agencies, and people would go to Yellowstone and/or the southern Utah national parks. I learned to have a good stock of German, French, and Dutch Church materials (Book of Mormon and Truth Restored) on hand, because people asked lots of questions and were interested in answers (this was also right before the Olympics). They would often ask for recommendations other than Temple Square (which they all went to see), and I would point them to This is the Place monumnent, etc.An elderly German man asked me if we praticed Vielweiberei any more. I wouldn't have said this to just anyone (because of misunderstanding ---- "Do you know what a Mormon in Utah told me?"), but I could tell that he had a sense of humor and was sophisticated enough to properly process my banter. I told him that we had to stop it after we read in the Bible that "no man can serve two masters" ( Kein Mann kann zwei Meister dienen ).He had a good belly laugh at that, and I explained that we had stopped it in 1890, but that some offshoots still practiced it today. 1
volgadon Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 I have been to those countries where muslims practice polygamy and I know they treat their women as little more the brood mares. One village elder told me, "women are for babies, boys are for pleasure." I cant even think of an example were a woman was treated well enough that I would feel comfortable with my wife in that situation. I don't blame the muslim religion for this, but I do blame the culture of the countries that allow muslim polygamy.Sounds more like an Afghan saying than an Arab one.
rongo Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 She also describe how many women were ok with it. It was apparently excecuted in a very practical manner. I think most of us with polygamist ancestry have good and bad experiences. Most of my ancestors were poor and humble and the wives got along well with each other. Some of these were sisters.My most infamous one was wealthy and had six elderly wives when he married a 17 year old girl. He spoiled her and took her carriage riding to show her off, and the other wives did not like that.Interestingly, one of my young women's presidents a couple of years ago is descended from this youngest wife. She and I give each other a hard time about this (I'm from the favorite wife ---- I'm from the first wife; the one who *really* mattered, etc.)
Saints Alive Posted October 7, 2012 Author Posted October 7, 2012 Sounds more like an Afghan saying than an Arab one. you nailed it.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 Tangent from another thread. Is polygamy fundamentally sexist? I don't see how having multiple wives, assuming each is a willing partner and treated equally, is fundamentally sexist. Or at least not any more sexist that monogamy. Is the whole argument really just that the man has more than one wife and the wife can only have one husband?Why do we create such labels...it is tool God uses, and as soon as it purpose is fulfilled he gets rid of it because it is not the model he wants.
changed Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) I did read Saints by Orson Scott Card.I've read that book too - I thought it did a good job of showing both problems of how it would not work out (Emma shoving her down the stairs, Joseph not being able to be honest with his own wife etc. etc.) but I thought the example of the family with - I think it was two sisters? - the one where the women loved and were close to one another, was a beautiful example of what it could be when everyone had their hearts in the right place.For me, I see polygamy as being representative of Mary - a handmaid - being the virginal mother of Jesus. That Their "only" begotten son - the only one - had to be born through a handmaid, suggests to me that all of us children are born through handmaids, and then, when we reach the age of accountability, we are able to be born to Heavenly Parents. The point of it is "to raise up seed". As hard as it would be to share my husband, it would perhaps be even harder for me to watch another raise up my children as their own.We have an Earthly mother who bears us in the flesh in this fallen world... and we have a Heavenly Mother, who does not beget us in the flesh, but through the Spirit. We also have two fathers... polyandry was practiced, but is not spoken of as much... I think Mary, the mother of Jesus, was sealed to two different Father figures - I don't think Jesus was conceived or born outside of wedlock. Mary was a virgin, her relationship with the Father centered on their son - Jesus Christ. She had another sacred relationship with Joseph ... Jesus must have loved his Earthly parents very much, he waited until he was 30 to officially join his Heavenly Family.(New Testament | Galatians 4:27 - 31)27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? aCast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.We are the children of both heavenly and earthly parents, each with their own lessons to teach, each with their own love to give, hopefully all of our parents - in Heaven and Earth - are in sacred covenants with one another and are sealed to one another, and work together in raising us up... I think this is what polygamy and polyandry are trying to teach us. Edited October 7, 2012 by changed
Recommended Posts