Is Polygamy Inherently Sexist?

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

Without an explanation from him, I guess I disagree with Brian Hales on that point.  I don't understand why it is assumed that such a structure "inherently" places the women below the man.  In what way exactly?

Does Brian Hales argue that it is sexist, but that sexism is not inherently bad or something?  Because if he is an apologist, then he acknowledges that there will be exalted polygynyst couples, correct?  How could it be imperfect then?

 

 

[pogi]

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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

I don't know that I've ever read that definition.  That would make any business partnership without equal representation from both men and women, a sexist partnership by definition.

 

[clarkgoble]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

I think that misses the underlying issue of whether it's harder to be happy in polygamy. From the polygamists I've talked with most say it is much harder and wouldn't recommend it as a general principle. There are pluses and minuses. For instance there's always shared resources for dealing with kids. Important when women work. This is a big deal for that sect (forget which one) up around the Draper/Sandy area that tends to be more involved in regular jobs. The downside is of course how on earth a man could possibly make enough money to supply the families especially if each wife has as many children as a typical Mormon family. If a person has three wives with say 6 kids each that's 18 kids. The ones I know of have upwards of 25 kids. That first off means each child won't have much of a relationship with their dad, simply mathematically in terms of time. Secondly that's a huge ridiculous amount of expense. You're either living in poverty or else only very well off people can practice.

That was honesty as true in ancient times -- the main limit on polygamy were practical resources. In fact within the countries that practice polyandry typically the problem was limited resources with often brothers being married to the same woman. That's the case in say Tibetan polyandrous marriages.

The other problem of course is how to deal with the numbers of potential spouses as well as the age number. The typical problem in polygamy is too many men for not enough women. In ancient times that was mitigated somewhat by war. (And there's a compelling case to be made that most successful societies had wards in order to reduce the problem of how to deal with elite males with nothing to do but who weren't heirs -- the medieval solution was celibate monasteries and lots of wars) The infamous FLDS lost boys are a great example of this problem. You also end up with marriages with problematic age gaps and then questions of how much choice in marriage as a practical matter young highly desired women had. There are some tragic examples of that even in 19th century Utah history. And of course it's a huge problem again in FLDS groups and to a lesser extent in the other groups.

There are solutions to some of these problems and most of them pop up in history. So for instance to avoid the problem of powerful males continually marrying young desirable women there were limits on the number of wives to 4. (As a practical matter not always followed) As I said continual warfare and monastic orders was the way to deal with testosterone filled teens with no hope of marriage and advancement. In theory birth control is a solution to the problem of expense, although most polygamist groups don't tend to embrace it along with women working extensively outside of the home. 

I think it fair to say that even Mormons who might think Joseph was inspired with D&C 132 can simultaneously think they didn't exactly implement it well, and have doubts about whether it could be implemented well. Many see it in this life as a very temporary situation perhaps primarily intended as a kind of Abrahamic test of early members.

Edited June 26, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

25 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't know that I've ever read that definition.  That would make any business partnership without equal representation from both men and women, a sexist partnership by definition.

If the different representation is due to structural differences in hiring then that would be correct. That's why among SJW sort you tend to have people who make just that claim.

Now it gets tricky since you end up with things like why are women so overrepresented in certain fields like sociology. Or why there are now more women than men going to college. Yet if there are underlying structural causes for these then there's a prima facie presumption of sexism. 

The problem arises when you mix this with free choice. For instance most of the wage gap that gets harped on so much disappears when you account for choice, time working and so forth. In some ways we might well expect the wage gap to switch to the other side since pay tends to correlate strongly with education, and among the current generation women are much more educated than men. Anyway the issue of choice gets complicated. Is the lack of men in dangerous jobs like high voltage line worker or logger primarily about sexism or because women don't like those jobs? Ditto on the other side with sociology.

As to the definition, typically people distinguish between structural sexism or racism and intentional sexism or racism. Of course people who are intentionally racist or sexist may have made the structures that now hurt people. In that sense it's structures that go beyond what anyone intends to do.

Edited June 26, 2017 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

26 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

If the different representation is due to structural differences in hiring then that would be correct.

Right, it is not the structural inequality of representation that is sexist, it is the discrimination in hiring that is sexist.  It is hard to argue that a marriage is discrimination in the same way, in that we are allowed to discriminate in which sex we chose to marry (hire) - that is not sexist.

 

[pogi]

49 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Many see it in this life as a very temporary situation

Not for those involved. 

It is hard to argue anything inherently bad/evil about the institution if it is a celestial order. 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

Happiness is a relative term. So, perhaps you are correct that there are some "happy" polygamists. However, I suspect that is because they don't know anything else other than polygamy. My guess is that like citizens in totalitarian regimes, persons involved in polygamy would like it better and be happier outside of the practice.

[hope_for_things]

59 minutes ago, pogi said:

Without an explanation from him, I guess I disagree with Brian Hales on that point.  I don't understand why it is assumed that such a structure "inherently" places the women below the man.  In what way exactly?

Does Brian Hales argue that it is sexist, but that sexism is not inherently bad or something?  Because if he is an apologist, then he acknowledges that there will be exalted polygynyst couples, correct?  How could it be imperfect then?

The way I think he would say it is that the structure is sexist and unfair, because it gives a man multiple partners with the man in charge of them.  How is this equal?  One man, two or more women, this is unequal distribution of power, of sexual access, of legitimacy.  Its just not equal, I don't know what you're missing here.  

Hales then says that this same structure that is unequal on earth, will be different in the next life.  That we no nothing about how these dynamics will play out in eternity, but that he has faith that in the next life it must be different because God wouldn't have an unequal relationship in the Celestial Kingdom.  He takes that part on faith in God and God's justice.  

[JLHPROF]

18 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Happiness is a relative term. So, perhaps you are correct that there are some "happy" polygamists. However, I suspect that is because they don't know anything else other than polygamy. My guess is that like citizens in totalitarian regimes, persons involved in polygamy would like it better and be happier outside of the practice.

For groups like the FLDS where most people are born into the culture you may be right.
But there are also many polygamists who come from outside the culture, often from the LDS Church, and choose to enter polygamy and to stay (or leave if they aren't happy).

Sister Wives is just one example of this.
I think you have a narrow view of polygamists.
There are just as many of these  as there these

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The way I think he would say it is that the structure is sexist and unfair, because it gives a man multiple partners with the man in charge of them.  How is this equal?  One man, two or more women, this is unequal distribution of power, of sexual access, of legitimacy.  Its just not equal, I don't know what you're missing here.  

What do you mean by "in charge"?  That is what I am missing.  How is that "inherent" in polygamy?  Isn't that more of a cultural dynamic than an inherent dynamic of the institution?   How is it equal and fair for a man to be "in charge" of even just one woman in a monogamous relationship?  Isn't that also sexist?  Monogamy is just as guilty of this, so why single-out polygamy?  Why must the distribution of power and legitimacy (I have no clue what you mean by that) be unequal?  

I think you are judging polygamy from what you see in popular polygamist cultures and not based on what is "inherent" in it. 

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

What do you mean by "in charge"?  That is what I am missing.  How is that "inherent" in polygamy?  Isn't that more of a cultural dynamic than an inherent dynamic of the institution?   How is it equal and fair for a man to be "in charge" of even just one woman in a monogamous relationship?  Isn't that also sexist?  Monogamy is just as guilty of this, so why single-out polygamy?  Why must the distribution of power and legitimacy (I have no clue what you mean by that) be unequal?  

I think you are judging polygamy from what you see in popular polygamist cultures and not based on what is "inherent" in it. 

One man and two or more women are not co-equal.  The man has more power than the women based on the structure of that relationship.  The man chooses his sexual access with his partners.  Unless you are implying that the women are also in a sexually dynamic relationship, in which case, I guess that could be equal if the women can choose who to have sex with as well, but that's not how most heterosexual polygamous relationships function. 

Monogamy can be unequal and I would argue that in our culture today that there isn't a full equality of the sexes.  But that doesn't mean the marriage contract itself s responsible for this power distribution being unequal, those things are cultural but the legal structure of a marriage between two parties is an equal distribution of power 50/50.  

[pogi]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

One man and two or more women are not co-equal.  The man has more power than the women based on the structure of that relationship.  

Why does 1 man "inherently" have more power than 4 women in such a marriage contract?  That makes no sense. It really depends on how you structure it - it could give more power to the female majority if structured like a business partnership. 

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The man chooses his sexual access with his partners.  

Why do the women not have a say?  As I have previously pointed out, the typical man's libido is greater than the typical woman's, so I don't see how this doesn't actually balances things out some - potentially alleviating much sexual frustration, expectation, and negotiation for all involved.  Men and women are typically not sexually equal, so lets not pretend like all things need to be equal when they are not.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 26, 2017 by pogi

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Right, it is not the structural inequality of representation that is sexist, it is the discrimination in hiring that is sexist.  It is hard to argue that a marriage is discrimination in the same way, in that we are allowed to discriminate in which sex we chose to marry (hire) - that is not sexist.

But if you make it so men can marry whom they want but not women then that is sexist. So if a man can marry more women but a woman can't marry more men then that's an example of structural sexism. So right now a man can remarry when widowed and be sealed to both spouses but a woman can't.

Again to be clear I'm not saying whether it's good or bad here. I think that a different question. I think because of the way social values in the west are right now the assumption of racism and/or sexism is always wrong. I don't think that follows nor do I think that helfpful. A good example might be say affirmative action which in one sense of racism is racist but some might say it's good in order to overcome the effects of past racism. (I'm here ignoring for the moment the redefinition that's underway which sees sexism or racism as only applying when applied to groups with lower power - I don't like that redefinition even though I understand why people are doing it.) Likewise a set scholarships just for low income males might be sexist but that doesn't mean it's bad or inappropriate.

 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Not for those involved. 

It is hard to argue anything inherently bad/evil about the institution if it is a celestial order. 

Something can be good if practiced by a celestial being that's bad if practiced by someone fallen. So it would be good if God is placed in charge of ensuring the orbits of the planets function right but bad if I right now were placed in charge of that.

So something can be good/bad at a particular place and time. In this case I think polygamy is in general bad but still commanded and good when commanded. (This is more or less just what Jacob 2 says)

I'm just saying that we have to judge things in terms of our capabilities. 

 

Edited June 26, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

46 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think you have a narrow view of polygamists.
There are just as many of these [] as there these []

I deleted the pictures for space. But honestly how are you calculating your numbers for sects? I'd add that even with more progressive lds breakoff sects it gets complicated. So for instance many of the Allred group are more diverse. (I don't know for sure but I believe both recent reality shows were of people tied to the Allred group) I'd tend to say that break off LDS groups make up a minority of polygamists and that the majority are likely African immigrants. The suggestions from newspaper stories I've read is that there's a lot of unhappiness there.

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I deleted the pictures for space. But honestly how are you calculating your numbers for sects? I'd add that even with more progressive lds breakoff sects it gets complicated. So for instance many of the Allred group are more diverse. (I don't know for sure but I believe both recent reality shows were of people tied to the Allred group) I'd tend to say that break off LDS groups make up a minority of polygamists and that the majority are likely African immigrants. The suggestions from newspaper stories I've read is that there's a lot of unhappiness there.

Well, this board is a Mormon board.  So I am looking at Mormon polygamists.
And based on my studies there are as many, if not more, modern happy polygamists (that you wouldn't even recognize on the street) as there are crazy kid marrying prairie dress wearing nutjobs.

The AUB, Centennial Park members, the independent polygamists like the Dargers, (and yes those on Sister Wives, My Five Wives, and Polygamy USA) are all virtually indistinguishable from the average Church member.  Your doctor, lawyer, nurse, dentist, kid's kindergarten teacher (at least in Utah).  You really have no idea.

The FLDS is crumbling and the few that remain may be miserable, but blaming it on faith based polygamy is inaccurate in my opinion.
You want to start looking at polygamy for purely social reasons then I am certain you will find more unhappiness.
But if you are looking at polygamy where there is true faith and religious backing IMO you will find at least as many happy polygamists as downtrodden miserable ones.  They are quite capable of leaving if they are miserable.  They aren't all trapped on a commune with no education.

[katherine the great]

25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The AUB, Centennial Park members, the independent polygamists like the Dargers, (and yes those on Sister Wives, My Five Wives, and Polygamy USA) are all virtually indistinguishable from the average Church member.  Your doctor, lawyer, nurse, dentist, kid's kindergarten teacher (at least in Utah).  You really have no idea.
 

I've heard of Centennial Park (I think on an old Oprah show), but I have not really looked too deeply.  I do remember being struck by how ordinary they looked in dress and affect because I had only seen polygamist women with the telltale french braid and quaint clothing. Out of curiosity, do you know what their background is?  Is this a splinter group of a fundy group?  Is there an LDS history to these other groups? I'm genuinely curious what would attract free American women to a polygamist culture outside of some indoctrination related to early LDS doctrines. I'm a biological rather than a cultural anthropologist, but I'm still fascinated.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Without an explanation from him, I guess I disagree with Brian Hales on that point.  I don't understand why it is assumed that such a structure "inherently" places the women below the man.  In what way exactly?

 

I think people see it that way because it assumes that multiple wives are equal to one man.  

[pogi]

54 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

But if you make it so men can marry whom they want but not women then that is sexist.

It would only be sexist if people were forced to chose polygyny only.  However, given the options of polygyny, polyandry, monogamy, or any other form of polygamy, then there is no structural discrimination in marriage options.  Marriages are more like a private clubs anyway, so they are allowed to discriminate, so it is not really the same. 

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Something can be good if practiced by a celestial being that's bad if practiced by someone fallen.

That is true, except the argument falls apart when you consider that God has commanded it to be practiced by fallen man, so polygamy would not universally fall under the category of "bad if practiced by fallen man".

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

So something can be good/bad at a particular place and time. In this case I think polygamy is in general bad but still commanded and good when commanded. (This is more or less just what Jacob 2 says)

I agree with that. 

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm just saying that we have to judge things in terms of our capabilities. 

 I agree with that too, but whom God calls he qualifies.  When God commands, he always prepares a way and makes us capable. 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Happiness is a relative term. So, perhaps you are correct that there are some "happy" polygamists. However, I suspect that is because they don't know anything else other than polygamy. My guess is that like citizens in totalitarian regimes, persons involved in polygamy would like it better and be happier outside of the practice.

Again, i think this might assume to much.  One example i know was raised LDS, and had a monogamous marriage.  After her divorce, she converted to a polygamous sect (she was still in her 20s, not FLDS) and became a second wife.  She claims she is very happy (though her and one of the wives have a rocky history).

[USU78]

10 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

I've heard of Centennial Park (I think on an old Oprah show), but I have not really looked too deeply.  I do remember being struck by how ordinary they looked in dress and affect because I had only seen polygamist women with the telltale french braid and quaint clothing. 

The So Utah [Short Creek] folks who later became the FLDS didn't have a particularly odd style of dress or hair until relatively recently.  Back then, the women's fashions were pretty much what you would have seen in Anytown rural western US.  A lot of homemade clothes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Creek_raid

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

I've heard of Centennial Park (I think on an old Oprah show), but I have not really looked too deeply.  I do remember being struck by how ordinary they looked in dress and affect because I had only seen polygamist women with the telltale french braid and quaint clothing. Out of curiosity, do you know what their background is?  Is this a splinter group of a fundy group?  Is there an LDS history to these other groups? I'm genuinely curious what would attract free American women to a polygamist culture outside of some indoctrination related to early LDS doctrines. I'm a biological rather than a cultural anthropologist, but I'm still fascinated.

The ones that i know of (the Browns and the Dargers, i think), are part of a mormon offshoot religion.  They believe that JS is a prophet and they believe in the BoM.  Behind that, i don't know much about their beliefs.  

But Cody Brown is a convert to that church from LDS (I grew up near where he grew up, in a small wyoming town, and their family is well known).  His mother and father converted from the LDS church while Cody was on his mission and then they took another wife.  He followed them after he returned home.

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think people see it that way because it assumes that multiple wives are equal to one man.  

Right, and I think that is the biggest problem that I am having in this thread.  I am struggling to get people to divorce themselves from that stereotypical perspective and help them understand that things don't have to be that way.  The man is literally only 1/5 of the equation, equal to each of the individual 4 women.

[katherine the great]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The ones that i know of (the Browns and the Dargers, i think), are part of a mormon offshoot religion.  They believe that JS is a prophet and they believe in the BoM.  Behind that, i don't know much about their beliefs.  

But Cody Brown is a convert to that church from LDS (I grew up near where he grew up, in a small wyoming town, and their family is well known).  His mother and father converted from the LDS church while Cody was on his mission and then they took another wife.  He followed them after he returned home.

Interesting. Cody doesn't strike me as the typical polygamist male. Most polygynous societies we study follow a pretty predictable pattern: Only the wealthier and/or more high status men have more than one wife. I think the early church followed this pattern pretty closely. I remember that early in the show, one of the wives had to work full-time to help support the family. Cody doesn't seem to fit the bill--either in wealth or force of personality.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

Right, and I think that is the biggest problem that I am having in this thread.  I am struggling to get people to divorce themselves from that stereotypical perspective and help them understand that things don't have to be that way.  The man is literally only 1/5 of the equation, equal to each of the individual 4 women.

Really? Since when is 1 = 4? The man runs things. Also, if there is equal time between the 4, the 4 are with the man 25% of the time. They have to share while he doesn't have to share with other men. How is that equal?

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Really? Since when is 1 = 4? The man runs things. Also, if there is equal time between the 4, the 4 are with the man 25% of the time. They have to share while he doesn't have to share with other men. How is that equal?

Not only this...but with the children as well.  I cannot imagine having to answer to my child if Dad was with another family...This would be way harder than we realize.