Is Polygamy Inherently Sexist?

[bluebell]

15 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.

Not really though.  The dynamic for the husband and for the wives is completely different.  

The man is 'the husband' in the family.  He is fully 'the husband' in the relationship.  If someone needs something from 'the husband', he's it.  If the husband needs something from a wife, he has multiple options to choose from.  If he is upset with one wife, he can completely ignore her and still have a full marriage relationship with a different wife.

Each woman though is only a portion of 'the wife' in the family.  She's a wife.  If a wife needs a husband to fulfill something or do something, he is her only option.  If a wife is upset with her husband and does not want to interact with him, she is without that full marriage relationship for however long it takes to move past it.

If a man was married to all of the women in a group marriage, then the dynamic would be 1:5 but that's not how polygamy works.  Each marriage is considered a union in and of itself.  

In polygamy, the husband has five marriages while each wife only has one marriage.  That is why it it's not equal.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

Studies? Not sure how to take that. Is that a few people you know or a more robust sociological study?  I don't claim to know many although I do know the Williams though. Although I tend to not ask many questions.

Edited June 27, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

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. 

In what sense forced? Right now they are all illegal.

If you're saying that any group freely chosen can't be structurally sexist then of course the freedom to choose doesn't make it non-sexist. It may mean it's an unobjectionable form of sexism but that's different.

 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Not really though.  The dynamic for the husband and for the wives is completely different.  

I thought you were talking about power - that the man is equal to 4 women in power.  It is hard to know what you guys are talking about without you being very specific.  The dynamics are not always equal in monogamy either, each partner assumes unique roles and challenges.  We all have to make sacrifices and there is always compromise and a balancing act in any marriage, and polygamy is no different. It just has special challenges for all involved and NOT JUST THE WOMEN (I am not yelling, I just don't know how to emphasize that enough).  I feel like everybody is viewing this as a cake walk for the man, as if every man would take advantage of and manipulate the situation to his advantage without regard for the needs and concerns of every member in his family.  I honestly think the righteous man who doesn't abuse the situation gets the short end of the stick in polygyny in every way but sex - which I think is more balanced than monogamy.

Quote

 

The man is 'the husband' in the family.  He is fully 'the husband' in the relationship.  If someone needs something from 'the husband', he's it.  If the husband needs something from a wife, he has multiple options to choose from.  If he is upset with one wife, he can completely ignore her and still have a full marriage relationship with a different wife.

Each woman though is only a portion of 'the wife' in the family.  She's a wife.  If a wife needs a husband to fulfill something or do something, he is her only option.  If a wife is upset with her husband and does not want to interact with him, she is without that full marriage relationship for however long it takes to move past it.

If a man was married to all of the women in a group marriage, then the dynamic would be 1:5 but that's not how polygamy works.  Each marriage is considered a union in and of itself.  

In polygamy, the husband has five marriages while each wife only has one marriage.  That is why it it's not equal.

 

Yes, the husband would be spread thin, but he cannot in righteousness "ignore" one wife and pretend that his relationships are complete, to do so would be to manipulate his marriage to his advantage and is incredibly unrighteous.  Lets not assume unrighteous manipulation.  For some reason everybody seems to want to assume that.  It would be incredibly challenging for all involved to get their needs met.  To make such a marriage work would be an incredible sacrifice for the man, I honestly would rather die than try to balance 4 wives...hell no!  I could never take that level of stress in not 1 but 4 marriage relationships.  I would honestly rather be the woman in a polygamist relationship.  The man would literally be required to sacrifice all of his time in meeting his families needs before ever having time to get his personal needs met.  It would be beyond exhaustive emotionally.  So is the man really equal to 4 women?  Hardly. 

What you all are also not considering is that each sister wife can potentially be a support and ally for each other in ways that monogamy misses out.  How do you factor that into the equation?  These women, while not married to each other per se, are sealed to each other in a single eternal family unit via the husband.  I recognize the potential for conflict and jealousy, but with every challenge, there is a potential blessing and opportunity as with any relationship.

You are all thinking of this in terms of the man being 1/2 of each relationship to each wife, in which case 1 man would be techincally mathematically equivalent to 4 women.  But this only speaks to what is required of him, and not what is bestowed to him (it is a net loss, not a net gain of time, emotional/physical energy, and power).  Lets think of what this REALLY means.  A typical man only has to be 1/2 of 1 marital relationship.  This frees him up to fulfill other wants and needs outside of marriage.  A polygynyst who is married to 4 woman is 1/2 of 4 marital relationships (0.5(4) =2)  The polygynyst man has to rise from the power of 1/2 to the power of 2.  Where is he supposed to get that extra power and energy from?  That is not counting balancing yard work, house maintenance, and fathering for potentially 4 different house holds.  Again...HELL NO!

Edited June 27, 2017 by pogi

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Really? Since when is 1 = 4? 

I don't know what you are talking about.  Where did I say that?  I was arguing against that equation.  Bluebell stated that 1 man is equal to 4 wives in polygamy (1 = 4), not me.

2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

The man runs things. 

Not in my house! 

2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

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?

It is not equal, way more is required of the man.  All would be required to sacrifice of themselves to make it work.  Perhaps in the sacrifice things are made equivalent.  It would be a challenging balancing act for all.  I would not wish polygyny on anybody quite frankly.

Edited June 27, 2017 by pogi

[pogi]

28 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

In what sense forced? Right now they are all illegal.

In the sense that it was the only legal option available.  A hypothetical.

28 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

If you're saying that any group freely chosen can't be structurally sexist then of course the freedom to choose doesn't make it non-sexist. It may mean it's an unobjectionable form of sexism but that's different.

Then we are back to the previous argument.  Is a 1 man and 4 women business partnership an example of sexism?  I thought we already agreed that it was not sexist where personal choice was involved in the dynamic,  and where agency was not limited by "structural differences in hiring"?  

Edited June 27, 2017 by pogi

[clarkgoble]

47 minutes ago, pogi said:

In the sense that it was the only legal option available.  A hypothetical.

Then we are back to the previous argument.  Is a 1 man and 4 women business partnership an example of sexism?  I thought we already agreed that it was not sexist where personal choice was involved in the dynamic,  and where agency was not limited by "structural differences in hiring"?  

It's sexist within the structure of their church not in the sense that they freely chose the church, in the same way that male only priests in Catholicism is sexist even though people freely can choose to be or leave Catholicism. Again the sexist/racist taxonomy is separate from good/bad even though in our culture there's a presumption that it's always wrong. As I said I find that an unfortunate characteristic of our society. (Which is partially why there's a movement to redefine the terms in terms of power)

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

In what sense forced? Right now they are all illegal.

If you're saying that any group freely chosen can't be structurally sexist then of course the freedom to choose doesn't make it non-sexist. It may mean it's an unobjectionable form of sexism but that's different.

 

Does sexism exist when all parties are happy and satisfied?  What if the individuals have no concept of "sexism" and find their chosen lifestyle wonderful?  It seems very elitist to inform them that they are "wrong" and that their chosen lifestyle is sexist - which is meant to demean, lessen, and ridicule.  

The US does this type of cultural invasion throughout the third world.  We import, enforce what we think is "fair" or "equal" without any degree of thought that the third world may be perfectly happy just living their culture.  We discard their culture and tell they they are wrong and need to "advance" and adopt our culture, our norms and never think twice about it.  It is a form of cultural imperialism.  I see the same thing happening in this thread.  We need to stop something and ask if the individuals are happy without using any judgmental language.  

[clarkgoble]

8 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Does sexism exist when all parties are happy and satisfied?  What if the individuals have no concept of "sexism" and find their chosen lifestyle wonderful?  It seems very elitist to inform them that they are "wrong" and that their chosen lifestyle is sexist - which is meant to demean, lessen, and ridicule.  

Again with the definition I was using "wrong" is not entailed by "sexist." I've tried to make that very clear. So a scholarship only for one sex might be sexist but not wrong.

[pogi]

10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

It's sexist within the structure of their church not in the sense that they freely chose the church, in the same way that male only priests in Catholicism is sexist even though people freely can choose to be or leave Catholicism. 

Polygamy can exist outside of church and religion though.  The question was, "is polygamy inherently sexist?"  Sure, within certain constructs it can be, I have already acknowledged that, but that doesn't make it "inherently" sexist in every construct.  My problem is with defining/labeling anything unequal between the sexes as sexist.  Men and women are inherently unequal in many ways, so that doesn't work for me and renders the word meaningless by making us all sexist.

I think that I should be clear that I am arguing against this definition:

Quote

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

Many here seem to be trying to make the case that polygamy inherently places the "man above the woman", gives him "more power", and is an inherently oppressive dynamic.  That is primarily what I am arguing against. 

10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Again the sexist/racist taxonomy is separate from good/bad even though in our culture there's a presumption that it's always wrong. As I said I find that an unfortunate characteristic of our society. (Which is partially why there's a movement to redefine the terms in terms of power)

I agree with this.  I think it is best to avoid the term all together in defining benign situations, because the term is too loaded. 

[clarkgoble]

Again I think it depends upon the choices open to women. I think social norms create pressures such that even if a choice is in theory open to a person they might not have a fully free choice. I'm not sure whether you'd agree with that or not.

[pogi]

46 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again I think it depends upon the choices open to women. I think social norms create pressures such that even if a choice is in theory open to a person they might not have a fully free choice. I'm not sure whether you'd agree with that or not.

I agree that it "depends", which demonstrates my point that it is not necessarily sexist in all potential situations.  It demonstrates that it is not "inherently" and universally sexist (using the definition above), but only that it can be, depending on several factors. 

Lets hypothetically suggest that polygamy was legal.  One could argue that social norms create pressures to chose monogamy, "that even if a choice is in theory open to a person they might not have a fully free choice".  Does that make monogamy sexist because social norms restrict "full free choice" of the woman to choose due to social pressures? 

In essence you are arguing that it is the social pressures that are sexist and not the institution itself.  That is basically what I have been saying all along. 

Edited June 27, 2017 by pogi

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

Not really though.  The dynamic for the husband and for the wives is completely different.  

The man is 'the husband' in the family.  He is fully 'the husband' in the relationship.  If someone needs something from 'the husband', he's it.  If the husband needs something from a wife, he has multiple options to choose from.  If he is upset with one wife, he can completely ignore her and still have a full marriage relationship with a different wife.

Each woman though is only a portion of 'the wife' in the family.  She's a wife.  If a wife needs a husband to fulfill something or do something, he is her only option.  If a wife is upset with her husband and does not want to interact with him, she is without that full marriage relationship for however long it takes to move past it.

If a man was married to all of the women in a group marriage, then the dynamic would be 1:5 but that's not how polygamy works.  Each marriage is considered a union in and of itself.  

In polygamy, the husband has five marriages while each wife only has one marriage.  That is why it it's not equal.

Thanks Bluebell, you said it much better than I could.  

[JLHPROF]

16 hours 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.

 

16 hours 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.

Centennial Park is a splinter group off of the FLDS group.  They are far more liberal in their practice.  In fact according to the show Polygamy USA they generally insist on the women getting revelation and choosing their husbands.

All of the groups I listed are Mormon offshoots.  Some claim priesthood lineage broken off from the Church.  A few (especially independents like the Dargers) are waiting for another restoration.
So yes, in one way or another there is an LDS history to all Mormon polygamist groups and offshoots.  And most maintain doctrinal beliefs in keeping with the 19th Century Church.  Basically, take away any changes to ordinances and practices that have occurred since 1900 and that is what they believe.

The idea that all women in polygamy are unhappy in my opinion stems from the idea that FLDS is what polygamy looks like.    These other groups and independents have agency and education.  They all choose to live polygamy and they all choose to stay.  Strange choices if they are unhappy.
 

[JLHPROF]

14 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Studies? Not sure how to take that. Is that a few people you know or a more robust sociological study?  I don't claim to know many although I do know the Williams though. Although I tend to not ask many questions.

Neither.
I have spent much time studying all aspects of Mormon history and doctrine.  That has included taking the time to study into all the polygamist sects (much as Brian Hales has done on his site - http://www.mormonfundamentalism.com/)
HIs page of documents is a treasure trove of information on these groups (http://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/fundamentalist-documents/).  I have read quite a few of these.

And like you, I am acquainted with numerous polygamists around the Salt Lake and Utah valleys.  Heck, we see them protesting at the capital.  And oddly enough, they don't seem too miserable or repressed or eager to see polygamy end.
And that includes the women.

[clarkgoble]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

And like you, I am acquainted with numerous polygamists around the Salt Lake and Utah valleys.  Heck, we see them protesting at the capital.  And oddly enough, they don't seem too miserable or repressed or eager to see polygamy end.
And that includes the women.

The reason I'm a bit skeptical of such anecdotal evidence is that I'm not sure we can tell from such public performances. I just think of people who seemed completely happy at church only to find out that behind closed doors they were secretly miserable for reasons I'd not have guessed at.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The reason I'm a bit skeptical of such anecdotal evidence is that I'm not sure we can tell from such public performances. I just think of people who seemed completely happy at church only to find out that behind closed doors they were secretly miserable for reasons I'd not have guessed at.

Well, yes, that can be true of anyone.  Which sort of reduces any direct correlation with polygamy.
While it may be true that people born and raised among abusive communities with no easy way out can be miserable, generally speaking anyone who enters into a community of their own free will and is unhappy will leave eventually.  Given how many choose to stay in the non-abusive polygamist communities there must be some positive outcomes and happiness involved.

[clarkgoble]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, yes, that can be true of anyone.  Which sort of reduces any direct correlation with polygamy.
While it may be true that people born and raised among abusive communities with no easy way out can be miserable, generally speaking anyone who enters into a community of their own free will and is unhappy will leave eventually.  Given how many choose to stay in the non-abusive polygamist communities there must be some positive outcomes and happiness involved.

Right. And my qualms aren't just with polygamists but with happiness measures in general and especially comparing different groups. Since happiness is so tied with expectations that vary by group, I think it's hard to measure.

I can't remember if I used the word happiness. If I tend I'll scold myself as usually I'm more careful. But I do think polygamy is challenging in ways that regular marriages aren't for the reasons I outlined. For both the men and woman. For instance one person I know had more than 25 kids. There's just no way those kids are getting the attention they would in a family of 3-4 kids. But I'll also admit I've not talked to much with them. The talks we have had were what I was reflecting.

[ttribe]

33 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, yes, that can be true of anyone.  Which sort of reduces any direct correlation with polygamy.
While it may be true that people born and raised among abusive communities with no easy way out can be miserable, generally speaking anyone who enters into a community of their own free will and is unhappy will leave eventually.  Given how many choose to stay in the non-abusive polygamist communities there must be some positive outcomes and happiness involved.

I'm not sure that's very sound reasoning.  There are plenty of examples of faith-based communities that were entirely abusive, but its members represented otherwise.  If there's one thing history has taught us, it's that zealous belief will alter the perception of reality, often to the detriment of the person's very well-being.

Edited June 27, 2017 by ttribe

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'm not sure that's very sound reasoning.  There are plenty of examples of faith-based communities that were entirely abusive, but its members represented otherwise.  If there's one thing history has taught us, it's that zealous belief will alter the perception of reality, often to the detriment of the person's very well-being.

Sure.
But it still seems to me that we are reading our bias onto their emotions far beyond any evidence that would lead us to do so.
We simply cannot bring ourselves to believe that polygamy could be a happy arrangement for people.  Therefore we assume they are all miserable and put upon.
But other than those groups (FLDS) where that is clearly the situation, there is no reason to tar every believer with the same brush.

15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Right. And my qualms aren't just with polygamists but with happiness measures in general and especially comparing different groups. Since happiness is so tied with expectations that vary by group, I think it's hard to measure.

I can't remember if I used the word happiness. If I tend I'll scold myself as usually I'm more careful. But I do think polygamy is challenging in ways that regular marriages aren't for the reasons I outlined. For both the men and woman. For instance one person I know had more than 25 kids. There's just no way those kids are getting the attention they would in a family of 3-4 kids. But I'll also admit I've not talked to much with them. The talks we have had were what I was reflecting.

The happiness discussion goes back to my response to Pete Ahlstrom who claimed "I think it is you who are creating a mythical happy polygamist family. This doesn't exist." and "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."

I completely disagree with his statements and don't believe they are in evidence.
You challenged my disagreement by stating that "I think that misses the underlying issue of whether it's harder to be happy in polygamy."
I stand by my assessment that the polygamist groups where agency and choice exist contain many happy participants and that not every polygamist doesn't know anything better.  Based on recorded accounts and people I have met there are many who chose to enter polygamy and would choose to do so again because they actually love it and it makes them happy.
 

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Sure.
But it still seems to me that we are reading our bias onto their emotions far beyond any evidence that would lead us to do so.
We simply cannot bring ourselves to believe that polygamy could be a happy arrangement for people.  Therefore we assume they are all miserable and put upon.
But other than those groups (FLDS) where that is clearly the situation, there is no reason to tar every believer with the same brush.
 

I don't know who's included in your royal "we" above, but I've stated on this very board that I have no real issue with consenting adults who choose independently to enter into a polygamous arrangement.  It is, however, my observation that once it becomes institutionalized it almost follows like night does day that abuses will begin to creep in.

Edited June 27, 2017 by ttribe

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I don't know who's included in your royal "we" above, but I've stated on this very board that I have no real issue with consenting adults who choose independently to enter into a polygamous arrangement.  It is, however, my observation that once it becomes institutionalized it almost follows like night does day that abuses will begin to creep in.

I think that is true about any organization that deals with any kind of power, authority, or ability to make rules for others.
(And I meant nothing by the royal "we", other than the general practice of portraying anyone who believes in polygamy as miserable, downtrodden, or brainwashed simply because it isn't the cultural norm).

[ttribe]

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think that is true about any organization that deals with any kind of power, authority, or ability to make rules for others.
(And I meant nothing by the royal "we", other than the general practice of portraying anyone who believes in polygamy as miserable, downtrodden, or brainwashed simply because it isn't the cultural norm).

I think that's probably true.  As it relates to this particular topic, however, I find various aspects of polygamy as a tool of power to be especially problematic.  But, I admit, that is likely one of my own perceptions; I have no empirical data at hand to back it up.

[BlueDreams]

On 6/26/2017 at 8:43 PM, pogi said:

I thought you were talking about power - that the man is equal to 4 women in power.  It is hard to know what you guys are talking about without you being very specific.  The dynamics are not always equal in monogamy either, each partner assumes unique roles and challenges.  We all have to make sacrifices and there is always compromise and a balancing act in any marriage, and polygamy is no different. It just has special challenges for all involved and NOT JUST THE WOMEN (I am not yelling, I just don't know how to emphasize that enough).  I feel like everybody is viewing this as a cake walk for the man, as if every man would take advantage of and manipulate the situation to his advantage without regard for the needs and concerns of every member in his family.  I honestly think the righteous man who doesn't abuse the situation gets the short end of the stick in polygyny in every way but sex - which I think is more balanced than monogamy.

Yes, the husband would be spread thin, but he cannot in righteousness "ignore" one wife and pretend that his relationships are complete, to do so would be to manipulate his marriage to his advantage and is incredibly unrighteous.  Lets not assume unrighteous manipulation.  For some reason everybody seems to want to assume that.  It would be incredibly challenging for all involved to get their needs met.  To make such a marriage work would be an incredible sacrifice for the man, I honestly would rather die than try to balance 4 wives...hell no!  I could never take that level of stress in not 1 but 4 marriage relationships.  I would honestly rather be the woman in a polygamist relationship.  The man would literally be required to sacrifice all of his time in meeting his families needs before ever having time to get his personal needs met.  It would be beyond exhaustive emotionally.  So is the man really equal to 4 women?  Hardly. 

What you all are also not considering is that each sister wife can potentially be a support and ally for each other in ways that monogamy misses out.  How do you factor that into the equation?  These women, while not married to each other per se, are sealed to each other in a single eternal family unit via the husband.  I recognize the potential for conflict and jealousy, but with every challenge, there is a potential blessing and opportunity as with any relationship.

You are all thinking of this in terms of the man being 1/2 of each relationship to each wife, in which case 1 man would be techincally mathematically equivalent to 4 women.  But this only speaks to what is required of him, and not what is bestowed to him (it is a net loss, not a net gain of time, emotional/physical energy, and power).  Lets think of what this REALLY means.  A typical man only has to be 1/2 of 1 marital relationship.  This frees him up to fulfill other wants and needs outside of marriage.  A polygynyst who is married to 4 woman is 1/2 of 4 marital relationships (0.5(4) =2)  The polygynyst man has to rise from the power of 1/2 to the power of 2.  Where is he supposed to get that extra power and energy from?  That is not counting balancing yard work, house maintenance, and fathering for potentially 4 different house holds.  Again...HELL NO!

I hope you don't mind me stepping in for a minute. For something to be inherently sexist doesn't mean that only one gender will suffer. Quite the contrary. Several forms of feminist thought point to the idea that all in the end suffer from the loss of equitable relationships. I don't think anyone is generally saying that the man will somehow not struggle. 

I think the reason why people are bring unrighteous circumstances in, is because that the more people you bring into a situation the more likelihood something will go wrong. I have had individual men who have started to do things in a unrighteous manner just from the stress of being the man of the house, personal struggles, and whatever else were getting to them. You're describing a man who is spread between several women, large amounts of children, complicated relational planes, etc. The sheer likelihood for unrighteousness shot way up. I mean one of the most well known polygamists in the scriptures (Jacob/israel) was doing just this specific thing. He didn't really love Leah, preferred Rachel, and the handmaid wives were more there for power plays by the main wives. There's entire scripture about Leah trying desperately to get her husband's attention thinking that all the sons she was giving him would have to soften his heart and have more time and attention towards her. But Rachel always seemed to win. A prophet of God couldn't escape unrighteous family patterns. How is it that others magically would? Each sister wife can potentially support and ally with each other....but they can also not. Or ally most of the time but then feel one sister-wife is out of line on one thing or another and be less supportive in that. Or feel irritated about her husband's new pick of a young wife and the others become cool or torn. This isn't a sure fire thing. It's a pretty unlikely thing to be honest. 

I don't think that polygamy is a cakewalk for ANYBODY involved. Children may not have as close relationship with their fathers because he's split between several homes and a ton of kids. Wives may be grappling with jealousy, frustration, isolation, or in fighting/conflict while they also juggle how to best manage the households (many polygamist families have the sister-wives divvy out work as well. So one mother may be working a  day job, one may be taking on more child rearing, etc....nowadays one income from the husband will not be able to pay for all of the family's expenses). And fathers may be dealing with the stresses you've mentioned.

But this doesn't remove the fact that the basic structure is inherently sexist. As BB mentioned there's THE husband and A wife among wives.  His role inherently has more gravity and weight. And honestly even on the shows where there's more modernity and better relationships, I still see that in the interactions. His role is irreplaceable, their roles are interchangeable. Daddy coming home is not the same as mommy-3 coming home. Husband seeing you and chatting is no where near the same as wife-2 chatting it up and loving you. And most of these communities do not allow or afford women to have the same choice in how they want to develop families. If they want more than one husband, that's not likely to happen. Most of these communities look down on that. Which also gives a preponderance for discrimination based on sex. Men can have more relational and family choices than women can. That's inherently sexist as well.  

Monogamy is not always equal. I've seen plenty of relationships that aren't. Often they're based on gender expectations that feed into unequal relationships. But that's not inherent in monogamy from the get go, most relationships that I've been privvy to see aren't, and there's a lot more room for that to change. In polygamous ones it far more likely to happen and there is more active need to reduce the likelihood of that happening. In a very sexist society like the one in the 1800's, criticism was often like pot calling the kettle black. But nowadays, with more equitable marriages, notsomuch. One structure has far more flexibility and inherently lends towards equity. Another structure simply doesn't. 

 

With luv,

BD

[pogi]

18 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

One structure has far more flexibility and inherently lends towards equity. Another structure simply doesn't. 

The struggle I am having is agreeing on a definition of sexism.  As I have already pointed out, I have never seen the word "equity" or "equal" in any definition of sexism.  Men and women's roles simply are not equal in any marriage that I have ever seen.  In fact, the Proclamation to the World suggests that the roles of each sex in a marriage are inherently different and unequal.  There is a division of labor and responsibilities that we try to make as equitable as possible, but no way are things going to be the same with equal stress, equal effort, equal sacrifice, or equal opportunities.

I have more to say, but this will have to do for now.