Is Polygamy Inherently Sexist?

[USU78]

10 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

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

Look at Cal's offerings.

[katherine the great]

33 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

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.

Humans are way too complex to impose absolutes. There are always outliers. We look at frequencies and patterns that are shared by all groups of humans. We also can't underestimate the effect of culture on human behavior- these often remove the "choice" element from the players. In western culture, women are generally free to make sexual choices and I'm sure that there are some women who love the constant companionship/help of other women so much that their natural jealousy takes a back seat to that need. I'm not aware of any statistically significant populations of such women in the modern world who make these choices outside of some religious/cultural indoctrination unless, again, it's a matter of resource acquisition for herself and her children. I'm not anti polygyny btw. I accept it as just another form of human marriage, but certainly not one that most women would choose in an environment of plenty.

[Tacenda]

26 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

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.

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."

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.

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.

I believe the church, like the Bible, believe the man is the head of the household. Would that be equal?

I've always heard this quip, maybe even from fellow LDS women, can't remember. Something like, the husband is the head but the women are neck, and head can't be moved without the neck, haha. 

But we're always told that they must lead in righteousness, or we aren't to follow what they say or do. Just as the husband is to follow Christ, we are to follow our husbands. I never did like that, that my husband was in between me and the Saviour. Like all I have to worry about is following his lead, and he follows Jesus Christ. 

[thesometimesaint]

21 hours ago, bluebell said:

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

LDS talking to other LDS understand that. Others outside our culture probably don't.

[thesometimesaint]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I believe the church, like the Bible, believe the man is the head of the household. Would that be equal?

I've always heard this quip, maybe even from fellow LDS women, can't remember. Something like, the husband is the head but the women are neck, and head can't be moved without the neck, haha. 

But we're always told that they must lead in righteousness, or we aren't to follow what they say or do. Just as the husband is to follow Christ, we are to follow our husbands. I never did like that, that my husband was in between me and the Saviour. Like all I have to worry about is following his lead, and he follows Jesus Christ. 

No woman is required to follow her husband down to Hell.

[Tacenda]

30 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

No woman is required to follow her husband down to Hell.

I know, in my post it says in righteousness, right?

Edited June 24, 2017 by Tacenda

[thesometimesaint]

I just wish all men would be righteous.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

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

http://carollynnpearson.com/ghostofeternalpolygamy/

I haven't been able to get to the meat of her book.  She has a thought process that comes across to me as overdramatizing and ignoring some crucial aspects of her and others' experiences while inflating other aspects' impact.  I can read a few pages before I have to put it down.  And so far I haven't found it informative enough to merit the effort.  Otoh, I have been told by sources I trust that there is enough info in it to justify the rest, so eventually I will get back into it.

[MiserereNobis]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

http://carollynnpearson.com/ghostofeternalpolygamy/

I haven't been able to get to the meat of her book.  She has a thought process that comes across to me as overdramatizing and ignoring some crucial aspects of her and others' experiences while inflating other aspects' impact.  I can read a few pages before I have to put it down.  And so far I haven't found it informative enough to merit the effort.  Otoh, I have been told by sources I trust that there is enough info in it to justify the rest, so eventually I will get back into it.

Interesting. It seems like she is trying to address in the book some of the things my questions were on. Is she viewed in a negative light for writing this book? USU78 appears not to like her.

[Calm]

Many like her, some do not.  She was very popular when I was in college back in the 70s and 80s.  She did pretty 'standard' Mormon stuff back then. She has become more of an activist since then and more polarizing for some people.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Lynn_Pearson

Edited June 24, 2017 by Calm

[MorningStar]

I guess there would be pros and cons for both sides, but I would hate it with a passion. 

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, MorningStar said:

I guess there would be pros and cons for both sides, but I would hate it with a passion. 

For me it would be absolutely horrible just to have another person in the house unless I was completely comfortable with them at this point in my life.  It is beyond my ability to imagine what adding sharing my husband to that already too much effort would be like.  I am neither repulsed or intrigued by that idea, it is a 'meh' thing, which is weird and probably because too out of my experience to imagine.  

I considered myself to be willing to grow into a better relationship that started as just a decent, good one when I was younger if the need was there....though I never considered it an actual possibility, if I had I might feel very different.  We have had several families stay with us when it was needed, took in kids who needed homes when parents couldn't care for them or wouldn't...nothing organized, but I feel back then we were pretty adaptable as a family and individuals and I have never believed that even if there was another woman in my husband's life it would change the quality of his love for me.  His love for people and for me has always felt infinite.

Now I just can't handle drama much.  Age or rigidity.  It would have to be perfect from the get go.  I don't see how that would be possible, so at best I can say the idea isn't theoretically repulsive to me, but don't see how it could possibly work at this point practically speaking...at least not in a way that would be fair to her (she would have to do all the adapting at this point, that just isn't right to ask someone).  And it would either be very nice or absolute hell, so I am quite thankful it's not happening.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Calm

[USU78]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Interesting. It seems like she is trying to address in the book some of the things my questions were on. Is she viewed in a negative light for writing this book? USU78 appears not to like her.

I find her a spouse abuse enabler, and that taints everything else she does. My problem, I know. I couldn't trust her on any topic.

[pogi]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

"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."

Perhaps I should have been more clear.  When I said "women preferred..." I was speaking of polygynyst women as it is clear that not all women were polygynysts. 

16 hours ago, Calm said:

"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.

If a women "preferred" a polygynyst marriage, then I think it clearly suggests that she would choose that type of marriage regardless.  Also, while the article does not demonstrate that women "chose" polygyny historically, one doesn't have to look far into history to see that women have chosen polygyny.  I give my ancestors as an example.  Also, if you look to the animal kingdom (which we are apart of) it doesn't seem so unlikely that some human females might also choose polygyny.  It is a natural order and one preferred choice in the animal kingdom. 

16 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

I don't know what you mean by "no matter what."

What I mean to say is that women have historically chosen polygyny.  We need look no further than our own religion, but I have a sneaking suspicion that there are plenty of other examples too. 

[Calm]

Pogi, imagine a situation...

A woman has two choices of marriage.  Each man is equally powerful in their community, the same age, equally attractive, equal in wealth, equal in fame, equal in sexual and romantic attraction to her, equal in every way save one.  The first one has three wives, she will be the fourth.  The second one has no wives, no children to share the inheritance with her children.  Which husband do you believe the vast majority of women would choose?

[Physics Guy]

Who would seriously be defending polygamy in the twenty-first century, if they weren't religiously obligated to defend the morality of a polygamous prophet?

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

Pogi, imagine a situation...

A woman has two choices of marriage.  Each man is equally powerful in their community, the same age, equally attractive, equal in wealth, equal in fame, equal in sexual and romantic attraction to her, equal in every way save one.  The first one has three wives, she will be the fourth.  The second one has no wives, no children to share the inheritance with her children.  Which husband do you believe the vast majority of women would choose?

perhaps I am misunderstood.  I am not arguing that all women in all situations prefer, or should prefer, polygyny.  My main argument is that it is not sexist if a woman today makes an informed decision out of her own free will, without coercion.  I don't suspect that it would be the popular choice, but I do suspect it would happen more frequently if it was legal and not so taboo.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

perhaps I am misunderstood.  I am not arguing that all women in all situations prefer, or should prefer, polygyny.  My main argument is that it is not sexist if a woman today makes an informed decision out of her own free will, without coercion.  I don't suspect that it would be the popular choice, but I do suspect it would happen more frequently if it was legal and not so taboo.

Is this because you feel women are incapable of choosing to be in a sexist relationship?

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

Who would seriously be defending polygamy in the twenty-first century, if they weren't religiously obligated to defend the morality of a polygamous prophet?

There are non religious polygamists. 

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

Who would seriously be defending polygamy in the twenty-first century, if they weren't religiously obligated to defend the morality of a polygamous prophet?

For the same reason that people defend marriage equality and/or religious tolerance.

A few examples on the first page of a quick google search:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/04/legalize_polygamy_marriage_equality_for_all.html

http://reason.com/archives/2015/07/02/from-gay-marriage-to-polygamy

http://www.mjemagazine.com/10-reasons-polygamy-great-thing-agree-disagree/

[pogi]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is this because you feel women are incapable of choosing to be in a sexist relationship?

No, it is because I feel that women are capable of choosing a non-sexist polygynous relationship.

Edited June 24, 2017 by pogi

[JLHPROF]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

Pogi, imagine a situation...

A woman has two choices of marriage.  Each man is equally powerful in their community, the same age, equally attractive, equal in wealth, equal in fame, equal in sexual and romantic attraction to her, equal in every way save one.  The first one has three wives, she will be the fourth.  The second one has no wives, no children to share the inheritance with her children.  Which husband do you believe the vast majority of women would choose?

This is a legitimate question for today.  For the time period when polygamy was being practiced in the Church a single or monogamist man was not able to be equally powerful in the community with a polygamist.  Certain callings, ordinances, and opportunities were withheld from men who would not live plural marriage, and by connection, from their wives.  John Taylor even records that in a revelation.

[pogi]

A question for those LDS members giving me friendly resistance.

Would you argue that D&C 132 is sexist?

If not, then why is it wrong of me to suggest that women can willingly enter a non-sexist polygynous relationship?

Edited June 24, 2017 by pogi

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, pogi said:

No, it is because I feel that women are capable of choosing a non-sexist polygynous relationship.

But whether or not the woman chooses it has no bearing on whether or not it's sexist, right?

[pogi]

Just now, bluebell said:

But whether or not the woman chooses it has no bearing on whether or not it's sexist, right?

Would you ask that question of me if I said "women are capable of choosing a non-sexist monogamous relationship"?  Wether monogamous or polygamous, a woman's choice can have bearing whether or not it is sexist.  I don't see where  you are going with this unless you are of the position that polygyny is inherently sexist.  Is that your position?  If not, I don't understand why my statement is confusing or receiving pushback, because I don't feel like I would receive this line of questioning if I said the same statement in regards to monogamous relationships.

I stand by what I said, "women are capable of choosing non-sexist polygynous relationships."