Is Polygamy Inherently Sexist?

[pogi]

25 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

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

The handsome bearded man in my profile-pic is a G-G-G (don't know exactly how many) grandfather on my mother's side.  He was a polygynyst.  His second wife kept a very good journal and frequently talked about her polygynous relationship and dynamics.  From all accounts it was a happy healthy dynamic, with as equal a partnership as any monogamous relationship in that time, so far as I can tell.  I don't have reason to believe that this was a unique family.

[MiserereNobis]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

The handsome bearded man in my profile-pic is a G-G-G (don't know exactly how many) grandfather on my mother's side.  He was a polygynyst.  His second wife kept a very good journal and frequently talked about her polygynous relationship and dynamics.  From all accounts it was a happy healthy dynamic, with as equal a partnership as any monogamous relationship in that time, so far as I can tell.  I don't have reason to believe that this was a unique family.

I'm willing to believe based on that beautiful beard alone

 

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, pogi said:

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?

CFR please

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

CFR please

That is from the first psychology today link I posted.  It stated something to the effect that women preferred being a polgynyst wife to a successful male than a monogamous wife to a less successful male.

I would repost it here but am on my phone.

[pogi]

52 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

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?

I think if you replaced the word "bad" with "sexist" in his post, you might be more prone to agree.

[sunstoned]

21 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

In LDS theology, gender division is inherent.

On a secular as practiced in most parts of the world, and by most people who practice it, I would agree that it is sexist.

However, men and women have never been equal, and never will be. They are different and bring to the union different attributes that complement each other. Adding other women to the mix muddies the waters because we do not understand how it should work here on earth and how it will work in the next life. Vilate Kimball, according to her daughter, Helen Mar, had a vision of the clestial kingdom and how the plurality of wives would work before it was revealed to her by her husband or the prophet Joseph Smith. She was willing from that time forward to allow and even assist her husband to obey that commandment.

The Patriarchal Order is sexist, as it is practiced here upon this earth because all too many do not understand (men or women) how to practice it here nor how it will be practiced in the next life. But, since we receive our revelations, commandments, and instructions from Heavenly Father rather than Heavenly Mother, it would seem that this is the way they have decided that things will work.

Glenn

 

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say,  but  I very much disagree with the bolded section above.

[Bernard Gui]

14 hours ago, rchorse said:

This argument seems to ignore 2 Nephi 2:22-23, "And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy,

Yes, this is the LDS postion via the Book of Mormon. The question is how other Bible-based religions deal with the issue. Had there been no Fall and no death, would Adam and Eve still be having children after all these millennia. How many people would be on earth now?

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, pogi said:

That is from the first psychology today link I posted.  It stated something to the effect that women preferred being a polgynyst wife to a successful male than a monogamous wife to a less successful male.

I would repost it here but am on my phone.

Thanks, I will look for it.

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Fair enough.

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

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?

Do you have some references that support the statement that polygyny has been the woman's choice with an obliging mate?  I am not necessary disagreeing, it is just that the history I have read it seems polygamy either religious or cultural is always male driven.

[Calm]

"It stated something to the effect that women preferred being a polgynyst wife to a successful male than a monogamous wife to a less successful male."

What it says is some prefer, not a generalized statement:

"some ancestral women preferred to be the co-wife of a really impressive man than the sole wife of a second-rate one."

That is very different than saying women in general prefer being co-wife.

Not only that, it doesn't demonstrate that historically speaking women in polygynous relationships chose this as opposed to possibly being forced into the relationship because marriage was arranged by fathers. Brothers, or other male leaders or female ones for that matter.

This is what I CFRed:

"Historically in humans, polygyny has been the woman's choice with an obliging mate."

At best, you have demonstrated some women will engage in polygyny in order to get the mate they want.  You have not demonstrated that if they could have the mate they wanted no matter what, they would still choose polygyny or that women in general chose when they could or even had a choice historically speaking.

So I think you need to modify the claim or look for a better source.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Calm

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

 

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. 

 

 

I never even implied that we are strictly monogamous.  Of course we are not.  What I said (and most of my fellow anthropologists agree) is that our sexual dimorphism reflects a tendency towards monogamy. Sure there are a few rogue scholars who interpret it differently, but I go with the majority. Monogamy also does not always mean one sexual partner for life. It can be social monogamy, serial monogamy or life long monogamy. Hominins have become decreasingly sexually dimorphic over time. Modern humans are quite flexible in our mating strategies and we can predict which environments will produce monogamy, polygyny or polyandry (extremely rare). Human females prefer monogamy except in environments where most men don't have good access to resources and then it is better to be the 2nd wife of Bill Gates than the only wife of poor Joe Schmo. I'm just pointing out what anthropology observes from a larger framework. These are our basic instincts formed through natural selection over millions of years. With recent cultural changes and the demographic transition we are undergoing, who knows how that will eventually change our evolutionary trajectory.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

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?

Well for once I gotcha.  !

Notice my point was that morality is cultural and not absolute.  Yes within Mormon culture certain behaviors are considered unacceptable absolutely.

But there is no standard by which we can establish "scientifically" that any behavior is inherently wrong in all circumstances

It's Hume all over again- you cannot deduce an "ought" from an "is" without making contextual assumptions,  You cannot even get a "cause" from an event without making interpretations and assumptions

That means, regardless of what Mormons consider moral absolutely, they are based on a context which includes alleged "revelations" establishing commandments etc with which others may reasonably disagree.  And yes I personally accept this context hook line and sinker but I know it IS a context I have freely chosen to accept as part of my life, and that there is nothing logically "inherent" in any of it.

I accept it by affirmation and by voluntarily becoming baptized etc.

There is no logical reason that can establish any moral principle as being inherently right or wrong no matter how much I may affirm or believe an action to be inherently evil.

I mean there are those who actually believe that the extinction of mankind would be a good thing for the earth.   There is no logical argument you can make against that kind of belief as dumbfounding as it may be.

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say,  but  I very much disagree with the bolded section above.

I think that you did misunderstand. Men and women have different physical, emotional, and spiritual attributes. Those attributes create inequalities in one way or another that will always exist. Legally speaking, the two sexes can allow each other to coexist equally, but even that has not happened yet.

[USU78]

9 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

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

Merely that we must evaluate the xixth century's practitioners by their own lights. Their agenda, their motivations, their desires.

More than anything else, they sought to be saints in Zion.

This habit of using Marxist or Feminist memes (especially assigning victimizer and victim status)) to evaluate people invariably makes us miss the whole point of why and how they lived their lives, the choices they made, and whether they, on balance, were successful.

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, pogi said:

Fair enough.

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

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?

Women often choose to support sexism, usually because they believe it's what God expects of them or because it seems like the lesser of two evils.  

As I said before, if the choice is between being the Fourth concubine with limited legal protection and status, or being a servant with absolutely no rights or status, concubine is a logical choice.  It's probably the best choice.  But that doesn't mean it's not a relationship built around and supported by sexism.

And for the record, I'm not anti polygamy at all. 

[smac97]

On 6/23/2017 at 0:27 AM, 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.

"Unequal" in what sense?  I'm not sure I understand the premise here.  

Quote

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.

But couldn't this issue also plausibly framed the other way?  "One husband with many wives appears to be a situation where the women outnumber the single man, and hence have more authority, power, what-have-you, than he does."

The power dynamics appear to flow more from the broader community than from the specific polygamous family unit.  If so, then we can't really draw any across-the-board conclusions.  The power dynamics of a polygamous family in, say, Saudi Arabia are probably going to be radically different from the dynamics found in, say, Kody Brown's family (which in turn may be very different from the dynamics found in many 19th-century Mormon polygamous families).  In other words, the allocation of power and authority does not arise out of polygamy per se, but rather out of the broader sociocultural milieu.

Quote

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.

Again, couldn't this issue also plausibly framed the other way?  "For example, a man with four wives would seem to be a set-up where the man has only 20% of the relationship, with the women having 80% between them."

Quote

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.

As to the former (19th-century polygamy), there appears to have been a hodge podge of results.  Polygamy, as viewed generally over time, worked well in some families, so-so in others, and terribly in yet others.

I have polygamous ancestors on both sides of my family.  It appears to have worked well for both sets.  The family history stories I have heard (which, owing to my dad's fondness for history, are not whitewashed) indicate the women generally got along, helped each other with child-rearing, cooking, chores, etc.  There was much persecution at times.  My paternal GGF was imprisoned for a while because he was a polygamist.  His wives came together and worked together during his extended absence.

As to the latter, I don't give it much thought.  Should I attain the Celestial Kingdom, we'll find out there if it will be practiced.  And if so, it will be practiced under circumstances profoundly superior, in terms of situation, righteousness, enlightenment, willingness, etc., than the rough-hewn exemplars of polygamy we saw in 19th-century Mormonism.  For example, the power dynamics you discuss above will be utterly non-existent in the Celestial Kingdom, having been extinguished by the perfecting power of the Atonement.  Exalted beings will have cast off the human frailties and weaknesses that make polygamy (and pretty much every other human endeavor) imperfectly attempted in this life.

Quote

Is polygamy simply a natural outgrowth of patriarchy?

I don't think so. There have been all sorts of patriarchal societies where polygamy has not existed.

Quote

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.

Could you provide more information on this, in terms of Catholic doctrine and "the division of gender" in the hereafter?

Thank you,

-Smac

Edited June 24, 2017 by smac97

[MiserereNobis]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It's Hume all over again- you cannot deduce an "ought" from an "is" without making contextual assumptions,  You cannot even get a "cause" from an event without making interpretations and assumptions

Ok, I get what you are saying now.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Merely that we must evaluate the xixth century's practitioners by their own lights. Their agenda, their motivations, their desires.

More than anything else, they sought to be saints in Zion.

This habit of using Marxist or Feminist memes (especially assigning victimizer and victim status)) to evaluate people invariably makes us miss the whole point of why and how they lived their lives, the choices they made, and whether they, on balance, were successful.

Ok, I see what you are saying. However, I did ask for more than just an evaluation of 19th century polygamy. I was wondering, too, how people felt about polygamy in the celestial kingdom, and how women here in particular feel about the prospects of practicing it.

Also, I don't think it is a stretch to ask about sexism and polygamy. A very common analysis of polygamy is that it sets up an inherently unequal situation between the husband and wives. There are now three pages of people discussing it, so I think it is a discussable topic.

[bluebell]

42 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Ok, I see what you are saying. However, I did ask for more than just an evaluation of 19th century polygamy. I was wondering, too, how people felt about polygamy in the celestial kingdom, and how women here in particular feel about the prospects of practicing it.

Also, I don't think it is a stretch to ask about sexism and polygamy. A very common analysis of polygamy is that it sets up an inherently unequal situation between the husband and wives. There are now three pages of people discussing it, so I think it is a discussable topic.

I don't personally have an prospects of practicing it.  I don't think everyone will have to. 

 

[USU78]

54 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Ok, I see what you are saying. However, I did ask for more than just an evaluation of 19th century polygamy. I was wondering, too, how people felt about polygamy in the celestial kingdom, and how women here in particular feel about the prospects of practicing it.

Also, I don't think it is a stretch to ask about sexism and polygamy. A very common analysis of polygamy is that it sets up an inherently unequal situation between the husband and wives. There are now three pages of people discussing it, so I think it is a discussable topic.

Huh? Just how does it make sense to analyze the possibility of Celestial polygyny by speaking to the question of Who is victim and Who the victimizer?

[MiserereNobis]

22 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Huh? Just how does it make sense to analyze the possibility of Celestial polygyny by speaking to the question of Who is victim and Who the victimizer?

Maybe we're talking past each other or something.  You seem to be discounting my question about whether or not polygamy is sexist, like it is not even worth asking, rather than answering it.  Is that the case? 

I feel like it is a legitimate question to ask.

[RevTestament]

10 hours ago, katherine the great said:

I never even implied that we are strictly monogamous.  Of course we are not.  What I said (and most of my fellow anthropologists agree) is that our sexual dimorphism reflects a tendency towards monogamy. Sure there are a few rogue scholars who interpret it differently, but I go with the majority. Monogamy also does not always mean one sexual partner for life. It can be social monogamy, serial monogamy or life long monogamy. Hominins have become decreasingly sexually dimorphic over time. Modern humans are quite flexible in our mating strategies and we can predict which environments will produce monogamy, polygyny or polyandry (extremely rare). Human females prefer monogamy except in environments where most men don't have good access to resources and then it is better to be the 2nd wife of Bill Gates than the only wife of poor Joe Schmo. I'm just pointing out what anthropology observes from a larger framework. 

I assume you are speaking in generalities and not absolutes? I've read about women in modern, western culture, which seem to prefer polygamy. They like having a friend around who they can share child rearing responsibilities with. If one gets sick, there is someone else to help. Many expenses can also be shared - helping family resources to go further. But if one sees another wife/ves as a competitor, I could see how family relationships could be strained through jealousy, etc. There are certainly examples of that in the Bible even in simple, nomadic culture where there may be few resources.

[USU78]

1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said:

Maybe we're talking past each other or something.  You seem to be discounting my question about whether or not polygamy is sexist, like it is not even worth asking, rather than answering it.  Is that the case? 

I feel like it is a legitimate question to ask.

CLP's gripe about the possibility of Celestial polygyny is the issue at issue. From the Mormon perspective that gripe is at the same time both academic and nonsensical.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"Unequal" in what sense?  I'm not sure I understand the premise here.  

Unequal in marital relationship dynamics, which includes such things as decision making, affection, etc.

There is an excellent Chinese film called "Raise the Red Lantern" which shows polygamy in China in the 1920s.  The wives are not equal to the man, and the fact that there are more of them makes them even less equal.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

But couldn't this issue also plausibly framed the other way?  "One husband with many wives appears to be a situation where the women outnumber the single man, and hence have more authority, power, what-have-you, than he does."

It could be framed that way, but that's not the way things have usually worked out.  That's why I'm asking the question.  When a jihadist blows himself up to get his reward of 70 virgins, I'm pretty sure he's not thinking, "bummer, I'm going to be a slave now to 70 women."

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The power dynamics appear to flow more from the broader community than from the specific polygamous family unit.  If so, then we can't really draw any across-the-board conclusions.  The power dynamics of a polygamous family in, say, Saudi Arabia are probably going to be radically different from the dynamics found in, say, Kody Brown's family (which in turn may be very different from the dynamics found in many 19th-century Mormon polygamous families).  In other words, the allocation of power and authority does not arise out of polygamy per se, but rather out of the broader sociocultural milieu.

Yeah, this is what I'm getting at and I think this makes the most sense.  The greater culture will determine any sexism in a marriage.  But it appears on the surface, at least from a modern perspective, that polygamy occurs in situations where the patriarchy is strong and that polygamy reinforces the authority of the one husband over many women.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Could you provide more information on this, in terms of Catholic doctrine and "the division of gender" in the hereafter?

We believe that gender is an essential part of ourselves and will continue in heaven.  However, we will not have marriage and family and procreation, so the point I was trying to make was to distinguish the Mormon and Catholic view of what we'll be doing in Heaven.

[MiserereNobis]

13 minutes ago, USU78 said:

CLP's gripe about the possibility of Celestial polygyny is the issue at issue. From the Mormon perspective that gripe is at the same time both academic and nonsensical.

Who/what is CLP?  And what does that have to do with my question?  I must be missing some Mormon reference here.