Is Polygamy Inherently Sexist?

[pogi]

34 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Why do you want to defend it?  It's a horrible practice that doesn't benefit anyone other than the very few at the top of the polygamy pyramid

I am not defending it as the ideal form of marriage.  I would not choose it myself.  I view monogamy as the rule, but I support the exceptions.  As a libertarian leaning man, I am defending personal liberty.  As a Mormon, I am defending modern day revelation (D&C 132).  As a lover of truth, I am defending against false accusations ("all" are sexist).  As a relativist, I am defending against absolute statements. As a descendant of righteous polygynysts, I am defending my heritage. 

P.S. I would appreciate an answer to my question, why is it inherently sexist?

Edited June 26, 2017 by pogi

[Pete Ahlstrom]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am not defending it as the ideal form of marriage.  I would not choose it myself.  I view monogamy as the rule, but I support the exceptions.  As a libertarian leaning man, I am defending personal liberty.  As a Christian, I am defending the golden rule (properly applied).   As a Mormon, I am defending modern day revelation (D&C 132).  As a lover of truth, I am defending against false accusations ("all" are sexist).  As a relativist, I am defending against absolute statements. As a descendant of righteous polygynysts, I am defending my heritage. 

What about the practice seemingly benefitting only those at the top of the polygamy pyramid? How do you resolve the fact that there are roughly equal amounts of males and females born into the world, yet only the priviledged few get to marry in polygamous colonies such as those down in southern Utah? The practice cannot be universal lest one believes that god is unfair to those unfortunate males that cannot marry. How does this square with the golden rule? Also, what about when the polygamous man wants to be alone with one of his many wives? Is putting your other wives through that experience fair? Wouldn't that generate jelousy?

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

What about the practice seemingly benefitting only those at the top of the polygamy pyramid? How do you resolve the fact that there are roughly equal amounts of males and females born into the world, yet only the priviledged few get to marry in polygamous colonies such as those down in southern Utah? The practice cannot be universal lest one believes that god is unfair to those unfortunate males that cannot marry. How does this square with the golden rule? Also, what about when the polygamous man wants to be alone with one of his many wives? Is putting your other wives through that experience fair? Wouldn't that generate jelousy?

I am confused as to what your argument for it being inherently sexist is?  Can you clarify?  No one said anything about universal polygamy.  No one said there wouldn't be unique challenges for both the men and the women in such relationships. 

Edited June 26, 2017 by pogi

[Pete Ahlstrom]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am confused as to what your argument for it being inherently sexist is?  Can you clarify?  No one said anything about universal polygamy.  No one said there wouldn't be unique challenges for both the men and the women in such relationships. 

Definition of sexism

1. prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially :  discrimination against women

2. behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

I think having women in a polygamous relationship where the man dominates his harem, chooses who he is with, etc. puts women in a lesser role and fits nicely in the above definition. I think it is plainly obvious that it fits.

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am confused as to what your argument for it being inherently sexist is?  Can you clarify?  No one said anything about universal polygamy.  No one said there wouldn't be unique challenges for both the men and the women in such relationships. 

I'm not Pete of course, but there is some sexism because usually it's just women in polygamist relationships that have to share their partner in life. In that way there is sexism. Are there that many polyandrists? I think I've read of it happening but isn't it rare? Oh, here is this article, yes, it's rare. http://www.stuffmomnevertoldyou.com/blogs/where-in-the-world-are-polyandrists-women-marrying-multiple-husbands.htm

[pogi]

2 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

 

I think having women in a polygamous relationship where the man dominates his harem, chooses who he is with, etc. puts women in a lesser role and fits nicely in the above definition. I think it is plainly obvious that it fits.

I think you are operating from the stereotypical and pre-conceived notion of what polygamy is and what it must be like for all.  Why must it be that way if you are a polygamist?

[USU78]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

I think you are operating from the stereotypical and pre-conceived notion of what polygamy is and what it must be like for all.  Why must it be that way if you are a polygamist?

It's almost comical how some folks stumble over themselves to impute evil motives to those whose jockstraps they are not worthy to carry.

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think you are operating from the stereotypical and pre-conceived notion of what polygamy is and what it must be like for all.  Why must it be that way if you are a polygamist?

I agree with Pete that polygamy is inherently sexist, it fits the definition.  I think Brian Hales even says this when he talks about polygamy as a practice on earth.  

I also agree with you Pogi, that from the perspective of the polygamists, they may not feel the same way.  They would likely not describe their experience as being in an unfair and sexist situation. 

Personally, I have ancestors on both sides of my family who practiced polygamy.  I would like to think that they tried to treat what is a challenging situation, in the best way they could.  If this is where you are coming from, then I think I understand what you're saying.  

However, I don't think this refutes the definition of sexism, and I think this is the point that Pete is trying to make.  

[Pete Ahlstrom]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think you are operating from the stereotypical and pre-conceived notion of what polygamy is and what it must be like for all.  Why must it be that way if you are a polygamist?

I think it is you who are creating a mythical happy polygamist family. This doesn't exist.  Also, I don't see any agitation from the relief society to bring it back. I don't think they would be happy in such a relationship.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

12 minutes ago, USU78 said:

It's almost comical how some folks stumble over themselves to impute evil motives to those whose jockstraps they are not worthy to carry.

Jockstraps and polygamy do go great together ....

[pogi]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm not Pete of course, but there is some sexism because usually it's just women in polygamist relationships that have to share their partner in life. In that way there is sexism. Are there that many polyandrists? I think I've read of it happening but isn't it rare? Oh, here is this article, yes, it's rare. http://www.stuffmomnevertoldyou.com/blogs/where-in-the-world-are-polyandrists-women-marrying-multiple-husbands.htm

There is a couple in my ward where the wife offered to change all of the babies diapers if the husband does all of the yard work.  That is an inequality, but does that make it sexist if they both agree to the dynamic?  It totally reinforces stereotypical roles, but does that make it wrong if that is they view it as mutually beneficial? 

Yes ,women have to share their partner in polygamy, but they also can potentially gain support from sister wives (depending on the dynamic), potentially freeing time to work outside the home etc.  People seem to only be viewing this as a burden from the female perspective, but what of the man?  Is it not a burden to add 3 wives to the mix?  As if the issues that arise with one wife in monogamy is not hard enough to deal with!  I view it as a shared burden.  Yes the women have the burden of sharing their husband (changing diapers), but the man has a burden of balancing 4 different relationships and trying to make everyone happy (yard work).  If all are agreed to the dynamic for the perceived opportunities it offers, and view it as fair load of burden on everyone involved, I don't see what is wrong with it?

[Physics Guy]

I'm sure polygamous families can be happy. People in all sorts of circumstances can make the best of it and be happy. People with painful diseases can be happy.

And I can even imagine that some polygamous families are happier that way than they would be otherwise. There are a lot of people in the world, and there are probably a few people somewhere who truly prefer all kinds of things that most people don't. If anyone really makes an informed, free choice for polygamy, who am I to tell them how to live?

None of that means that polygamy as an institutionalized social norm, with social and religious pressure on everyone to conform to it, is right—now or ever. If it prevailed in the past, well, so did the plague. 

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

There is a couple in my ward where the wife offered to change all of the babies diapers if the husband does all of the yard work.  That is an inequality, but does that make it sexist if they both agree to the dynamic?  It totally reinforces stereotypical roles, but does that make it wrong if that is they view it as mutually beneficial? 

Yes ,women have to share their partner in polygamy, but they also can potentially gain support from sister wives (depending on the dynamic), potentially freeing time to work outside the home etc.  People seem to only be viewing this as a burden from the female perspective, but what of the man?  Is it not a burden to add 3 wives to the mix?  As if the issues that arise with one wife in monogamy is not hard enough to deal with!  I view it as a shared burden.  Yes the women have the burden of sharing their husband (changing diapers), but the man has a burden of balancing 4 different relationships and trying to make everyone happy (yard work).  If all are agreed to the dynamic for the perceived opportunities it offers, and view it as fair load of burden on everyone involved, I don't see what is wrong with it?

I agree with this post. But if the woman is told she must live it to gain the Celestial Kingdom, wouldn't that be a little unfair? Speaking of course, the early polygamy in the church. I have watched Sister Wives, and that poor Kody! I wouldn't want to be in his shoes. 

[USU78]

On 6/26/2017 at 10:53 AM, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Jockstraps and polygamy do go great together ....

Right on cue.  The suffering of both the men and the women who were called to endure such a horrific test should be honored, not made the subject of childish titters and ill-intended and always bad jokes.

Read the journals  ...  the depression, the loneliness in the midst of all that hustle and bustle.  Yet they carried on, enduring what PA and, I'm happy to admit it, I couldn't have endured.  I hope never to have to endure it.

Yet, as Elder Oaks stated, we don't know much about how things work in the hereafter, but we do know that promises we make for eternity are promises we make for eternity.  He lost his first wife, as did I, and he made the same promises to both his first and his second wife as I did.

Which promise need be kept if only one promise can be honored in the hereafter?

I have long been convinced that polygyny won't happen in the hereafter, since it is, at its most fundamental, a test, and happiness is what the hereafter's all about.  Elder Oaks brings me back to utter ignorance.  We don't know a dang thing, and must trust that He Who always watches out for us has the right answers, and those answers will surprise and delight us.

The tasteless comment came from you not Pete A. Clean it up.

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree with Pete that polygamy is inherently sexist, it fits the definition.  I think Brian Hales even says this when he talks about polygamy as a practice on earth.  

I also agree with you Pogi, that from the perspective of the polygamists, they may not feel the same way.  They would likely not describe their experience as being in an unfair and sexist situation. 

Personally, I have ancestors on both sides of my family who practiced polygamy.  I would like to think that they tried to treat what is a challenging situation, in the best way they could.  If this is where you are coming from, then I think I understand what you're saying.  

However, I don't think this refutes the definition of sexism, and I think this is the point that Pete is trying to make.  

This is Pete's argument as to why it is sexist:

Quote

I think having women in a polygamous relationship where the man dominates his harem, chooses who he is with, etc. puts women in a lesser role and fits nicely in the above definition. I think it is plainly obvious that it fits.

Do you agree with Pete that it is sexist because polygamous relationships universally, and of necessity, place women in a "lesser role" with the male "dominating"?  Polygamist relationships are not required to be male dominating with limited power and voice of the female.  Can a polygamous family not abide by the precepts in the Proclamation to the World just like any monogamous family would?

[pogi]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I agree with this post. But if the woman is told she must live it to gain the Celestial Kingdom, wouldn't that be a little unfair? Speaking of course, the early polygamy in the church. I have watched Sister Wives, and that poor Kody! I wouldn't want to be in his shoes. 

I am not going to argue about specific examples.  Yes there have been situations that might be viewed as unfair (not making any judgments about your example), but that doesn't mean that all are.

[pogi]

51 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I think it is you who are creating a mythical happy polygamist family. This doesn't exist.  Also, I don't see any agitation from the relief society to bring it back. I don't think they would be happy in such a relationship.

When did this get to be about which brings more happiness? I think that is relative and subjective and we were talking about sexism. I don't have any reason to doubt the accounts of my ancestors that they were happy.

I don't see agitation from the high-priests and elders quorums either.

51 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I don't think they would be happy in such a relationship.

 Therefore it must be so?

Again you are diflecting and not answering my questions.

 

Edited June 26, 2017 by pogi

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

This is Pete's argument as to why it is sexist:

Do you agree with Pete that it is sexist because polygamous relationships universally, and of necessity, place women in a "lesser role" with the male "dominating"?  Polygamist relationships are not required to be male dominating with limited power and voice of the female.  Can a polygamous family not abide by the precepts in the Proclamation to the World just like any monogamous family would?

If we are defining polygamy as a marriage relationship with one man and multiple women, then I would agree that the structure of that relationship is by definition a sexist structure, meaning that the structure itself is inherently unfair, placing the women below the man.  I've heard Brian Hales make this exact same statement, and he's an apologist for the church on the theology of polygamy.  I do agree with him on this statement.  

I would qualify all of the above by saying that there are many different ways that people practice polygamy and that some people practice it in much more egalitarian ways than others.  I also am not sure whether I support laws outlawing polygamy for consenting adults.  

As for the proclamation, it talks specifically about husband and wife in the singular, so I guess I don't see how the current language of the Proclamation really supports polygamy, as it seems to run contrary to it.  

[Pete Ahlstrom]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

Right on cue.  The suffering of both the men and the women who were called to endure such a horrific test should be honored, not made the subject of childish titters and ill-intended and always bad jokes.

Read the journals  ...  the depression, the loneliness in the midst of all that hustle and bustle.  Yet they carried on, enduring what PA and, I'm happy to admit it, I couldn't have endured.  I hope never to have to endure it.

Yet, as Elder Oaks stated, we don't know much about how things work in the hereafter, but we do know that promises we make for eternity are promises we make for eternity.  He lost his first wife, as did I, and he made the same promises to both his first and his second wife as I did.

Which promise need be kept if only one promise can be honored in the hereafter?

I have long been convinced that polygyny won't happen in the hereafter, since it is, at its most fundamental, a test, and happiness is what the hereafter's all about.  Elder Oaks brings me back to utter ignorance.  We don't know a dang thing, and must trust that He Who always watches out for us has the right answers, and those answers will surprise and delight us.

I think you are the one who first brought up the provoking jockstrap comment.  My comedic response was intended to deflect and not ratchet up the emotions.  In any event, I agree that we do not know what will happen in the hereafter.  Also, all the polys were absolutely a test, an unnecessary, uninspired test in my opinion, but a test nonetheless.  My ancestors on all sides had to endure the practice and I do not envy them one bit.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

When did this get to be about which brings more happiness? I think that is relative and subjective and we were talking about sexism. I don't have any reason to doubt the accounts of my ancestors that they were happy.

I don't see agitation from the high-priests and elders quorums either.

 Therefore it must be so?

Again you are diflecting and not answering my questions.

 

I don't know how I am deflecting when I say that I think polygamy or polygyny or any poly is inherently sexist in nature.  You seem to want to have me admit that some woman, somewhere likes polygamy and therefore it's an alright practice.  I guess someone could possibly like the practice.  North Koreans seem to worship their leader and believe he is a god.  Also, prior to Putin coming to power, some Russians were nostalgic for Stalin, the murderous dictator that killed millions of his own citizens.

Edited June 26, 2017 by Pete Ahlstrom

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I think it is you who are creating a mythical happy polygamist family. This doesn't exist.  

I don't think you can say this with any degree of accuracy.  I've followed some polygamist families and they seem as happy as the typical monogamous family is.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think you can say this with any degree of accuracy.  I've followed some polygamist families and they seem as happy as the typical monogamous family is.

Of course I am stating an opinion, based on polygamists I have known and runaways from polygamy I have known, but still an anecdotal opinion. One would have to do some studies in order to be sure about the esoteric concept of happiness combined with polygamy.  I concede that it is very difficult to be sure of anything 100%.  However, I would be surprised, if by digging a little into polygamous relationships, the women involved would not be resoundingly against it.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I think it is you who are creating a mythical happy polygamist family. This doesn't exist.

Bullpucky.
Pure stereotyping not based on evidence.  Yes, there are many unhappy polygamists.  And there are many happy polygamists.
Same as in monogamy, even if the causes of happiness/unhappiness may be a bit different.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Of course I am stating an opinion, based on polygamists I have known and runaways from polygamy I have known, but still an anecdotal opinion. One would have to do some studies in order to be sure about the esoteric concept of happiness combined with polygamy.  I concede that it is very difficult to be sure of anything 100%.  However, I would be surprised, if by digging a little into polygamous relationships, the women involved would not be resoundingly against it.

I'm going off of those polygamist offshoots that are not at all connected to the FLDS.  The Browns are one family that comes to mind off of the top of my head.  I read the book the women wrote and they seem very happy as polygamists (even with the struggles they talked about and are still working on).

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

P.S. I would appreciate an answer to my question, why is it inherently sexist?

If it's structurally unequal then it's sexist. 

I don't have much trouble saying it's sexist although I think that's orthogonal to whether it was commanded. In the same way priesthood in ancient Israel was sexist.