Is Polygamy Inherently Sexist?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

There are a few matriarchal polygamous societies.

SEE http://modernnotion.com/polyandry-when-women-have-multiple-husbands/

These are polyandrous societies though, not polygamous.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

That is true that polygamist cultures are typically male dominated, but so are monogamist cultures.  I suspect that it is the culture more than the marital structure that creates the sexist mindset.  I don't think we have a good example of how polygamy could be outside of a sexist culture. 

No, I can't think of a matriarchal polygamist society in history, but neither can I think of a matriarchal monogamist society.  Most anthropologists (according to wikipedia) hold that matriarchal societies do not really exist in history, with maybe a few minor exceptions.  Before the Greeks and Romans enforced monogamy, polygamy virtually dominated the planet, but monogamy did not bring with it matriarchy or marital equality.  That was due to a cultural revolution more than a marital restructuring.  

So it seems obvious that the idea that polygamy give women more power just isn't true.  Women either have the power, or they don't (and in a lot of cultures where they do, you see polyandry).

And historically, in most societies, women in polygamous societies have equal or less of a voice than those in monogamous, showing that the ration of men to women in a relationship does not give women more power in that society (and less power in society generally equals less power in marriage).

[thesometimesaint]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

These are polyandrous societies though, not polygamous.  

Polygamous just means more than one mate.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Polygamous just means more than one mate.

I know it technically does, but in our church culture, we use it almost exclusively to refer to men having more than one wife.

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So it seems obvious that the idea that polygamy give women more power just isn't true.  

I am not arguing that polygamy gives more power to women where the culture is sexist and male dominant.  My argument is that polygyny can give women more voice in a non-sexist culture.  There is nothing inherent in polygamy which strips the female of authority, voice, or power in the partnership.  It is very difficult to find non-sexist cultures throughout history for examples of how it could work.  My argument is that polygamy does not make women weaker or less-then - culture does. 

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And historically, in most societies, women in polygamous societies have equal or less of a voice than those in monogamous, showing that the ration of men to women in a relationship does not give women more power in that society (and less power in society generally equals less power in marriage).

Again, this only speaks to the sexist culture of these societies and says nothing about the marital structure.  

There is no evidence that polygamy is inherently sexist.  Evidence only shows that most polygamist cultures are sexist - but that is no different from monogamist cultures. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

Honestly, it seems to me like monogamy is an easier system to abuse in terms of sexism and male dominance.  Polygyny naturally favors the women in terms of dominance in the partnership.  4 women and 1 man - which sex is going to have the dominant voice?  

This would depend on living arrangements among other things.  If the husband can simply remove himself from the vicinity anytime he wants and choose who to visit among his remaining four wives, each wife has very little power in the relationship.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I am not arguing that polygamy gives more power to women where the culture is sexist and male dominant.  My argument is that polygyny can give women more voice in a non-sexist culture.  There is nothing inherent in polygamy which strips the female of authority, voice, or power in the partnership.  It is very difficult to find non-sexist cultures throughout history for examples of how it could work.  My argument is that polygamy does not make women weaker or less-then - culture does. 

Again, this only speaks to the sexist culture of these societies and says nothing about the marital structure.  

There is no evidence that polygamy is inherently sexist.  Evidence only shows that most polygamist cultures are sexist - but that is no different from monogamist cultures. 

The only way women can have power in a polygamous relationship is if they agree to and always act as "one".  Otherwise the husband can just withdraw from the negotiation and get what he needs from a different wife.

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

The only way women can have power in a polygamous relationship is if they agree to and always act as "one".  Otherwise the husband can just withdraw from the negotiation and get what he needs from a different wife.

I guess I'm the only one disturbed by the assumptions behind this discussion.  Sexual politics in covenantal polygynous relationships.  And always looked at only from the women's point of view, assuming, apparently, that the man is incapable of being hurt, used or objectified:  only the woman can be hurt, used or objectified.

What in the world is going on here?

Where is the compassion?

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

This would depend on living arrangements among other things.  If the husband can simply remove himself from the vicinity anytime he wants and choose who to visit among his remaining four wives, each wife has very little power in the relationship.

Yes, it could be manipulated to his advantage given 4 susceptible women, but I think it is still easier to manipulate 1 women then 4 women who have healthy boundaries and self-esteem.  Especially where the women form strong relationships with each other.  

[Calm]

20 hours ago, USU78 said:

I guess I'm the only one disturbed by the assumptions behind this discussion.  Sexual politics in covenantal polygynous relationships.  And always looked at only from the women's point of view, assuming, apparently, that the man is incapable of being hurt, used or objectified:  only the woman can be hurt, used or objectified.

What in the world is going on here?

Where is the compassion?

Where in the world do you get the idea from my post that I am only looking at it from the woman's POV or anyone here is suggesting a man can't be hurt?  Seems to me you are the one assuming it is being looked at that way.

The discussion itself was about "power" dynamics, about where inequality inherently exists in the marriage relationship.

Knowing where inequality exists allows for a relationship to establish ground rules in order to never get to the point, whatever works for those involved.

Talking about the specific of fundamental relationship power says nothing about interaction based on other methods, such as love and all the qualities discussed in the scripture speaking to how Priesthood should be maintained (not through power dynamics).

In a monogamous relationship, the power most likely rests on the one who finds it easiest to walk away from the relationship and lose the benefits of marriage.  If one uses that power in the relationship, it can often become abusive, whether male or female.

The imbalance in a polygamous relationship is even if the wife walks away, the husband loses only that individual relationship, not the benefits of marriage completely.

In specific marriage relationships, there may be cultural or individual attributes that may affect the cost benefits of walking away.  It might not be legal for either (divorce not allowed in some countries), it might be socially self destructive to do so, it may leave one financially destitute (that could affect a husband even in a polygynous marriage if property belongs to the wives) plus all the emotional losses of disconnecting with someone one loves...or at least used to.

It is just a simple fact, imo, of a very fundamental difference between monogamy and polygyny.  All the other dynamics apply to monogamy as they do polygyny, but that does not remove the reality that the benefits of marriage (whatever those are) for a man in a polygynous relationship are being supplied by more than one woman. 

It neithers justifies anyone using their power to walk away to dominate a relationship (I find such usage very troubling no matter who does it, horrendous when children are involved) nor does acknowledging it exists suggest the better ways of interpersonal dynamics of persuasion, etc. are wastes of time or meaningless.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yes, it could be manipulated to his advantage given 4 susceptible women, but I think it is still easier to manipulate 1 women then 4 women who have healthy boundaries and self-esteem.  Especially where the women form strong relationships with each other.  

Which would depend on living arrangements.  If they each had their own home, there might be little interaction and development of sister-wives relationships.  

And really depend on having 4 very emotionally healthy and confident women in the relationship as well as a very emotionally healthy and confident man, with none prone to playing manipulative games, etc.  While possible, if polygyny became a common occurrence, there would be many women and men who had issues entering into such relationships.  

There are ways families could set things up so balance is maintained (rules of scheduling husband and wife time, for example); but just like monogamous relationships, if things break down, the person who finds it easiest to walk away has the power.  Ignoring emotional or financial or cultural needs (which there always are and which will always impact the balance and may shift it into the wife's 'favor'), the husband doesn't lose marriage benefits in general if one wife walks away, only if all wives walk away or if he himself walks away from all his marriages.  A wife loses them no matter who walks away.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Calm

[katherine the great]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

  Here is an interesting article on the history of polygamy and theoretical reasons as to why monogamy dominates today: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/darwin-eternity/201109/why-we-think-monogamy-is-normal

 

Interesting article.  This article is written from the point of view of psychology and history, now I would like to present the view of anthropology on polygyny. Humans are not inherently polygynous.  Gorillas and Orangutans are inherently polygynous and that is reflected in their sexual dimorphism: the physical differential of the sexes.  Male gorillas and orangs are almost twice the size of their females because the females select the largest male and each male has several mates.  Humans definitely reflect a trend towards monogamy with our much reduced sexual dimorphism.  We would predict that when resources are mostly equally available to the males, the females will choose monogamous matings. However, when resources are clumped and a small percentage of the males have access to them, females will prefer resource-based polygyny over monogamy. Usually, females prefer monogamy because their reproductive fitness is better overall than their polygynous sisters. Of course, male reproductive fitness is enhanced much more greatly through polygyny so yes, it is inherently sexist.

[mfbukowski]

18 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

LDS friends,

The issue of polygamy was brought up in another thread and one poster argued that it was a system that was inherently unequal towards women. From an external 21st century viewpoint, this seems true. One husband with many wives appears to be a situation where the one man has more authority, power, what-have-you over each individual wife. For example, a man with four wives would seem to be a set-up where each wife is only a 1/4 of the relationship.

I'm wondering how posters here view this, not only as it was practiced in the 19th century, but how polygamy will be practiced in the celestial kingdom. Is polygamy simply a natural outgrowth of patriarchy? In particular, sisters, how do you feel about the prospect of sharing your husband with many other women in the celestial kingdom? Or am I misunderstanding LDS doctrine concerning this?

The Catholic Church is patriarchal insofar as it limits the priesthood to men, and we agree with you that in this mortal life gender roles have a part to play. However, the division of gender isn't inherent in our understanding of heaven, so I think the LDS view here is unique and I'm interested in not only the official doctrines, but the thoughts and feelings of those who believe it.

Thanks!

+PAX+

 

"Sexism" is a cultural judgement.  It's like asking of polygamy is inherently evil or inherently good

Moral values change- nothing as complicated as these issues can be "inherently" anything.  "Sexism" is a pretty new idea based on certain beliefs about what is good or bad.  I can't imagine anything thinking it is inherently bad if the parties are consenting adults to like the lifestyle.

We might as well be discussing whether any sexual practice between consenting adults is inherently evil.   Whether or not it is the BEST practice based on certain moral assumptions is entirely a question of what is compatible with the moral assumptions of the culture

It's like asking if killing humans is inherently evil.

Self defense?  War? Defense of others?  Are those also inherently evil then?

It is overly simplistic to think any particular behavior is inherently moral or immoral.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

I guess I'm the only one disturbed by the assumptions behind this discussion.  Sexual politics in covenantal polygynous relationships.  And always looked at only from the women's point of view, assuming, apparently, that the man is incapable of being hurt, used or objectified:  only the woman can be hurt, used or objectified.

What in the world is going on here?

Where is the compassion?

Yep

Yet again we are on the same side

Definitely getting boring.

I mean this is about arguing with people and here we go agreeing.  What's the deal here?

Edited June 24, 2017 by mfbukowski

[strappinglad]

True or false? The only people who will even be concerned with marriage and children in the eternities will be those who inherit ' eternal lives ' , ie. those who inherit the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. The rest of us poor souls will be doing other work which will not require such concerns.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I am not arguing that polygamy gives more power to women where the culture is sexist and male dominant.  My argument is that polygyny can give women more voice in a non-sexist culture.  There is nothing inherent in polygamy which strips the female of authority, voice, or power in the partnership.  It is very difficult to find non-sexist cultures throughout history for examples of how it could work.  My argument is that polygamy does not make women weaker or less-then - culture does. 

Again, this only speaks to the sexist culture of these societies and says nothing about the marital structure.  

There is no evidence that polygamy is inherently sexist.  Evidence only shows that most polygamist cultures are sexist - but that is no different from monogamist cultures. 

I guess I'd have to see some evidence that polygamy can give women more voice in a culture than monogamy can, before I could accept that as being a valid statement.

My point is that, if polygamy was somehow better for women than monogamy (in terms of the power of their voice) then you should see fewer sexist cultures embracing polygamy (because they would have to fight against the benefits of polygamy to keep their status quo).  That you actually see the opposite-that you are more likely to see polygamy in a sexist culture, seems to support the idea that polygamy makes it easier for men to be sexist, not harder (and not neutral).

I think the biggest evidence that we have that polygamy is usually sexist is that it assumes that women don't need a 1:1 ratio relationship with their husband.  

[Glenn101]

13 hours ago, RevTestament said:

This type of thinking still pervades LDS culture. Even though temporal polygamy has been banned, many LDS believe it will be practiced in heaven. This became an issue for my mother after she joined the Church, because she had members tell her - don't you want to share your husband in heaven? Which she did not. She found this repulsive, and has always told me it was an impetus for her departure from the church. I have told her 'just say no.' 

 

Although I do believe that polygamy will be practiced in heaven I do not believe that God will force anyone to share a husband. I believe that it will be as voluntary there as it was here.There is no theological reason I can see for any person to be forced into doing something they do not wish to do. I am in the same boat as many another person who has a deceased wife to whom they were sealed and are sealed to their current wife. I do not know what my first wife will opt for in the next life. But I trust God enough to believe that everything will be worked out. Heck, that is the only option that any of us have. But whatever it is, I believe that it will be worth it.

[MiserereNobis]

12 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't see how it is sexist where it is a consensual, mutually beneficial, and equal partnership.

I think the issue is whether or not there can be such an equal partnership in polygamy.

[MiserereNobis]

11 hours ago, USU78 said:

Misere nobis: you're asking the wrong questions.

What do you mean? Why are my questions wrong and what are the right questions?

[MiserereNobis]

10 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

I do believe that our Mother-in-Heaven has all the power and authority she needs in her unique role.

Do you believe that Heavenly Father has multiple wives?

[MiserereNobis]

4 hours ago, USU78 said:

I guess I'm the only one disturbed by the assumptions behind this discussion.  Sexual politics in covenantal polygynous relationships.  And always looked at only from the women's point of view, assuming, apparently, that the man is incapable of being hurt, used or objectified:  only the woman can be hurt, used or objectified.

What in the world is going on here?

Where is the compassion?

Please, elaborate your thoughts. You are hinting at them but it would be nice if they were clearly stated.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, katherine the great said:

Interesting article.  This article is written from the point of view of psychology and history, now I would like to present the view of anthropology on polygyny. Humans are not inherently polygynous.  Gorillas and Orangutans are inherently polygynous and that is reflected in their sexual dimorphism: the physical differential of the sexes.  Male gorillas and orangs are almost twice the size of their females because the females select the largest male and each male has several mates.  Humans definitely reflect a trend towards monogamy with our much reduced sexual dimorphism.  We would predict that when resources are mostly equally available to the males, the females will choose monogamous matings. However, when resources are clumped and a small percentage of the males have access to them, females will prefer resource-based polygyny over monogamy. Usually, females prefer monogamy because their reproductive fitness is better overall than their polygynous sisters. Of course, male reproductive fitness is enhanced much more greatly through polygyny so yes, it is inherently sexist.

Interesting take, but I think most scientists think it is a bit more complicated than that: 

https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-agree-that-classifying-humans-as-monogamous-or-polygamous-is-difficult/

As far as reproductive fitness goes, in general, it seems that women prefer fewer offspring today and are not as concerned about maximizing their reproductive fitness, so I don't view it as inherently sexist if a women prefers a reduced reproductive fitness.

Resources among humans are not equal, and the income gap is only growing.  It is clear that women are drawn towards men with more resources.  Historically, women have chosen of their own free will to be a polygynous wife to the larger, stronger, smarter, wealthier man than a monogamous wife to the less-then ideal biological male specimen.  I don't view that as sexist when it has historically been the woman's choice. 

According to this anthropology course at the University of Missouri-Combia, In multi-male societies it is clear that sexual selection prefers bigger/smarter brains than bigger bodies, which may explain our reduced (but still obvious) sexual dimorphism.  Also, larger species are more sexually dimorphic than smaller species, which may partially explain why we are less sexually dimorphic than gorillas and orangs while still preferring non-monogamous relationships throughout history. 

Emaa Nelson of the University of Liverpool says that "our lineage never evolved to be strictly monogamous."  That kind of fits our theology actually as our theology has not always been strictly monogamous either, neither our history as humanoids.  Even today, strictly monogamous relationships are the minority.

So I don't think we can definitively say that humans are strictly monogamous from a anthropologic, historical, or psychological perspective. 

 

 

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I can't imagine anything thinking it is inherently bad if the parties are consenting adults to like the lifestyle.

Oh c'mon Mark, there are plenty of consensual lifestyles that Mormonism claims are inherently bad. Do you not agree with your church's judgement on such things as drug use, prostitution, gambling, etc?

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think the biggest evidence that we have that polygamy is usually sexist is that it assumes that women don't need a 1:1 ratio relationship with their husband.  

This is my thinking, too. Saying that women have more power in a polygamous relationship because there are more women totally misses it, in my opinion. The underlying assumption seems to be that multiple women are equal to one man, so each individual woman is not equal to the man.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I guess I'd have to see some evidence that polygamy can give women more voice in a culture than monogamy can, before I could accept that as being a valid statement.

Fair enough.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

My point is that, if polygamy was somehow better for women than monogamy (in terms of the power of their voice) then you should see fewer sexist cultures embracing polygamy

I think religion plays a big role in why polygamy is or is not embraced by cultures. The same is true for sexism.

Quote

I think the biggest evidence that we have that polygamy is usually sexist is that it assumes that women don't need a 1:1 ratio relationship with their husband.

That is assuming that polygyny is forced on a woman.  Historically in humans, polygyny has been the woman's choice with an obliging mate.  If it is the woman's choice, how is it sexist?

Edited June 24, 2017 by pogi