Cooperation in Polygynous Households

[MustardSeed]

I can appreciate the desire to follow God, and I love me a Godly man.  But show me a man who says “Nope, not for me” regarding this topic and I’m happy to keep him a happy man. 

Edited March 28, 2019 by MustardSeed

[ttribe]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't understand this idea that some stories about polygamy not working correctly or being difficult or painful or damaging means that the fruit of polygamy is bad and obviously its immoral or not of God.  I mean, think about all the horror stories that exist around monogamy.  Monogamy can be a disaster.  It can cause a lot of trauma and disaster.  It can be painful.

Does anyone seriously believe that that means that the fruit of monogamy is bad and that it's immoral or not of God?

The preponderance of the evidence is not in favor of polygamy having a positive track record, as a general practice.  One need only look to Southern Utah for a prime example.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

The preponderance of the evidence is not in favor of polygamy having a positive track record, as a general practice.  One need only look to Southern Utah for a prime example.

Is southern Utah the preponderance of evidence of that kind of marriage?

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't understand this idea that some stories about polygamy not working correctly or being difficult or painful or damaging means that the fruit of polygamy is bad and obviously its immoral or not of God.  I mean, think about all the horror stories that exist around monogamy.  Monogamy can be a disaster.  It can cause a lot of trauma and disaster.  It can be painful.

Does anyone seriously believe that that means that the fruit of monogamy is bad and that it's immoral or not of God?

I'm confused in general about what exactly is meant by "moral" in the first place. 

Does this mean, what is ideal....what's more likely to lead to an eternal progression. Or what's more likely to be pragmatically healthy and sustainable in the here and now. I don't usually step into polygamy threads. Historically, polygamy just doesn't interest me that much and the anecdotal stories I've read from that era are definitely a mixed bag....and in the present it just doesn't really apply to my in my relationship. The idea of polygamy for me or my spouse is repugnant. If it works for somebody out there, good for them. But the idea feels like a disruption/intrusive to something sacred and continually developing between us. I remember watching a show on netflix about polygamy in what I assume is a fairly healthy polygamous community. There was a polygamous household shown that had a very good relationship (at least as depicted)....and even in one of those best case scenarios, I still would not recommend it or want it in any meaningful way in my life. Pragmatically I don't view polygamy as very useful and more likely to lead to problems because of the nature of multiple parties involved....though this doesn't mean that in very specific circumstances or societal pressures there could be something valuable to it on a pragmatic level.

 

But again, I don't know if any of these equate a moral stance. I agree though about pointing solely to the positive or negative experiences in polygamy to indicate its moral validity. 

 

With luv,

BD 

 

  

 

Edited March 27, 2019 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

4 hours ago, USU78 said:

A sense of divine purpose; a shared mission; shared hardship:  when Sarah and her slave, and Rachel and Leah, got crossways of one another, these things were absent.

I don't think you can know they were absent.  The blessings given Abraham and Jacob could have given a sense of divine purpose and mission and they certainly shared hardship.  Plus sisters...should have had a very high trust level already as they grew up together and knew each other well.

Though their dad may have taught them by example not to trust.  Both sisters engaged in deception, though Leah may not have had a choice if her father had forced her to pretend to be Rachel (Rachel stealing her father's teraphim).  Plus Jacob himself was known to resort to trickery.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Calm

[Teancum]

On 3/26/2019 at 1:20 PM, The Nehor said:

Sometimes it is in the furnace of afflictions that people most grow (or break). I do not think anyone would deny that polygamy is much more difficult to live righteously then monogamy but that is true of a lot of life. Sometimes the hard road is the best road.

Why? Who says the hard road is best? If that is the case should we intentionally seek hard roads? 

I understand that we can learn from challenges but its an idiotic mentality to think hardships are a wonderful thing especially when they are artificially imposed on us, sort of like Mormon Polygamy was.

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Though their dad may have taught them by example not to trust.

That is my read.  There's a reason Rachel didn't ask for but rather stole the household images.  And it's the same reason Jacob and company left in the middle of the night, making a habeas grabbit of all he felt entitled to.  Rebecca schemed against her own husband's plans and desires.  The camp up in Haran was filled with dysfunction, distrust, sharp dealing and out-and-out fraud.

Where were the sisters to have learned trust and mutual support?

Jacob means, in some translation, not the "Wrestler," but rather the "Stab-you-in-the-back-ler."  In German it's rendered "der Hinterlistiger," which means "insidious."  Abraham's family was a hot mess.  As was Isaac's.  As (especially) was Jacob's.  Reminds me of the Chinese movie, "Raise the Red Lantern."  A must see on these issues:  https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101640/

[Calm]

On 3/26/2019 at 11:16 AM, Gray said:

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.20170438

For your consideration. Another fruit with which we can evaluate the moral value of polygamy.

I don't see being less cooperative and acting more on reciprocal basis as immoral or even less moral unless you believe business and trading is inherently immoral.

It isn't what I would hope for my immediate family, but I see it as relatively common in all other forms of relationships.  Though altruism may become the basis when others see a need, if they see things as pretty equal in need, then relationships tend to be sustained best when there is a relatively equal give and take.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

[incest] was a feature of early LDS polygamy 

CFR please

Edited March 27, 2019 by Calm

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

 All we can conclude is that being blind drunk can be more challenging - which no one denies.  But with challenge, there are opportunities for growth and improved communication skills in developing trust between all involved.  Difficult, yes.  More likely to fail?  Maybe.  But risk is not inherently immoral. Without it, there can be no growth.  Choosing Jesus's plan has inherent risk.  It has built in challenges.  There is no guarantee.  And it is the ONLY plan that provides for growth...

Are you talking about religious plans only? There are many plans that provide for growth in different areas. Jesus' plan is the only one that provides for eternal growth.

Glenn

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

on one would ever say the women were controlled by men.

I think that depends on what is meant by "controlled".  Not being allowed to vote or to own property in one's own name if married (don't know when that changed), husband not being charged with rape if he forced his wife, not legally being to refuse conjugal rights is she didn't want to become pregnant again...certainly this didn't require each relationship to be one of control, but in general women had fewer options to choose if their husband was the controlling type.

I think it is hard to evaluate control because it can depend on so many things...the wife may have had choices when it came to her role as housekeeper, her choice to put efforts into beautiful home or garden for example, but the husband might have made financial decisions without her input if he was the one with the income, how much she was allowed for a household budget, for example, which would affect her ability to create those beautiful homes and garden.

[Calm]

I think it would be helpful not to use the term "board game" because .I go to thinking how my family plays cutthroat Monopoly, but are very cooperative in nature when caring for each other.

Here is how the game is described in the study:

Quote

By inviting spouses to make decisions with real monetary consequences under controlled conditions, we generated directly comparable measures of the extent to which husbands cooperate with their wives, wives with their husbands, and co-wives with each other. We then compared cooperation across monogamous and polygynous households and established who within polygynous households were least willing to cooperate with whom. Finally, using data on participants’ beliefs about others’ cooperativeness, we investigated whether the difference in cooperation between monogamous and polygynous households could be explained by differences in how husbands and wives condition their own cooperativeness on their beliefs about the cooperativeness of their spouses and co-wives.

We generated our data on cooperation by engaging participants in a series of two-person public goods games. At the start of a game each participant was given a sum of money, referred to below as his or her initial endowment. Each had to decide, in private, how much of that initial endowment to contribute to a shared fund and how much to keep. Once both had made their contributions, the shared fund was multiplied by 1.5 and then divided equally between the two. Initial endowments varied and were known only to the recipients. Participants maximized their joint earnings from the game by contributing their entire initial endowment to the shared fund. However, a participant maximized his or her individual earnings, given the playing partner’s contribution, by contributing nothing and going home with his or her own initial endowment plus three-quarters of the partner’s contribution.

Each participant played this game three times. All husband–wife pairs played one game together. All co-wife pairs played one game together. All other games were played by pairs of adults drawn from different households residing in the same community. The order in which participants played with their various partner types was randomized across participants. 

I get that by comparing families that were at the same level of financial status would help to control for how need for the money...or lack of need rather might affect game play, but I still wonder how much this would transfer to real life decisions.  I approach game playing in a different mind set than caring for my family.  If one is thinking of the money in terms of representing whether one wins or not vs. the money as potential income...that could affect play choices.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Calm

[bluebell]

37 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I understand that we can learn from challenges but its an idiotic mentality to think hardships are a wonderful thing especially when they are artificially imposed on us, sort of like Mormon Polygamy was.

I don't know that it's idiotic.  It seems to be supported by research (not that hardships are wonderful but that they are extremely useful in our emotional and mental development).  I attended a conference last night on how to help create women leaders and one of the points that was made (by Dr. Susan Madsen, who has studied and researched it) was that having challenges and difficulties in early life was one of the factors that helped a woman become a leader (such as in politics or the president of a large college or university, etc.).  The women that struggled most later in life with achieving their goals, feeling like they were living a life of purpose, and with imposter syndrome were most often the women who's parents had sheltered them from negative experiences, or solved the negative experiences that happened for them.  

These were the women that struggled less with anxiety and had higher self esteem as well.  

[Calm]

Quote

hile monogamous husbands’ and wives’ contribution rates were statistically indistinguishable, there was systematic heterogeneity in contribution rates within polygynous households depending on who was interacting with whom (Appendix, Section 2, Table A.4). Specifically, when co-wives played together, their contribution rates were significantly lower than when they played with their husbands: 76 percent, on average, compared to 80 percent. This difference is within wife—that is, it derives from a comparison of what the same women do when interacting with their husbands and when interacting with their co-wives. This being the case, it cannot be owing to selection of less cooperative women into polygyny (Appendix, Table A.5). As within monogamous households, the contribution rates of polygynous husbands when interacting with their wives did not differ significantly from those of polygynous wives when interacting with their husbands. 

Could women in polygynous families be simply more likely to follow their husband's direction, to trust the man in the relationship?  It appears it is not the husbands who are less cooperative (this may be wrong, I have got some cough meds in me and my brain is not processing very well), but the women are less cooperative with each other than their husbands. 

Skimming it, I don't see how the monogamous wives are tested for their cooperation level with other women.  If they don't test it, couldn't it be that women cooperate better with men than they do other women whether monogamous or polygynous?

Found it for the men...

Quote

Figure 2.2 also reveals that when playing with their wives, polygynous husbands contributed significantly less than monogamous husbands (Appendix, Section 2, Table A.4). This difference is between husbands—that is, it derives from a comparison of polygynous and monogamous husbands’ contribution rates when they are each playing with their wives. This being the case, it might be owing to selection of less cooperative men into polygyny. However, when comparing monogamous and polygynous husbands’ contributions when playing with women from other households, we found that they were statistically indistinguishable. This provides evidence that the difference in husbands’ cooperativeness when playing with their wives is not due to selection of less cooperative men into polygyny (Appendix, Section 3, Table A.6). This, combined with the result reported above, is consistent with polygyny causing husbands to be less cooperative with each of their wives. 

Quote

Spouses who believed that their playing partners would contribute 100 percent of their initial endowments chose to contribute 95 percent of their own initial endowment on average, regardless of whether their household was monogamous or polygynous.  

So even in situations where they believe their spouse will give all, they choose not to?  Strange.  This makes me wonder more about applicability to real world situations, it sounds like gamemenship is affecting decision making here.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Calm

[pogi]

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Why? Who says the hard road is best? If that is the case should we intentionally seek hard roads? 

Yes, we should intentionally seek hard roads.  Very few good things that we enjoy in life came about because it was easy.  Life is hard.  Doing hard things is good for us emotionally, physically, and spiritually.  It builds character and self-esteem.  It leads to accomplishment and growth.  Our economy would literally collapse if people did not do hard things in business.  Entrepreneurship is not easy.  School is hard.  Marriage is hard.  Work is hard. Exercise is hard. Eating right is hard. Overcoming addiction is hard. Being a parent is hard.  Being patient is hard.  Consistency can be hard... 

Doing hard things sharpens our minds, strengthens our backs, lifts our spirits, and keeps us young and alive.  I have worked many years with geriatric patients.  The ones who thrive emotionally, spiritually, and physically, keep doing hard things in their life.  The alternative is to seek instant gratification - avoid relationships because they are hard and instead indulge in television and escapism.  It is really easy to numb out and avoid difficulties in life - but ultimately we will lose our souls.   

[Storm Rider]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think that depends on what is meant by "controlled".  Not being allowed to vote or to own property in one's own name if married (don't know when that changed), husband not being charged with rape if he forced his wife, not legally being to refuse conjugal rights is she didn't want to become pregnant again...certainly this didn't require each relationship to be one of control, but in general women had fewer options to choose if their husband was the controlling type.

I think it is hard to evaluate control because it can depend on so many things...the wife may have had choices when it came to her role as housekeeper, her choice to put efforts into beautiful home or garden for example, but the husband might have made financial decisions without her input if he was the one with the income, how much she was allowed for a household budget, for example, which would affect her ability to create those beautiful homes and garden.

I agree completely that it all depends on the definition. Even in the examples you have above, it is a matter of degrees of control  - be able to vote for example, when voting is so often ignored by people today, how does not voting really impact the life of an individual. A husband not being charged for sexual abuse is a matter of degrees - he abused her and she slowly poisons him with rat poison. Who is in control?

Your second paragraph really highlights my position on this issue. Two humans that live together have a definite impact on each other. The degree of control one has over the other runs the entire gamut or range. The gender of the two individuals is irrelevant. 

[Calm]

I still can't find if they compared how women interacted with men in general...anyone see it?  Or the section on wives playing with women outside their family.  Can someone look please?

https://www.unamur.be/en/eco/eeco/Seminars%202017-2018/Papers/Abigail%20Barr

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

 how does not voting really impact the life of an individual. 

Lack of choice of representation of one's demographic in creating laws hugely impacts the life of individuals or so many would assume (remember "no taxation without representation!")

Quote

 A husband not being charged for sexual abuse is a matter of degrees - he abused her and she slowly poisons him with rat poison. Who is in control?

This ignore the fear of the law on choice...he can abuse her without fear of consequence.  Can the same be said if she poisons him?  Which one is more likely to exercise that choice, the one who will get hung if caught or the one whose community's reaction at most is getting looked down on by neighbours?

Edited March 27, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

The degree of control one has over the other runs the entire gamut or range. The gender of the two individuals is irrelevant. 

In each individual case, sure, the possibility exists it is irrelevant; but when speaking in terms of general trends and likelihoods, cultural and community standards have an impact on behaviour, do they not?

Is someone in your view as likely to steal if there is a legal penalty as someone who lives where there is no legal penalty for theft?

Edited March 27, 2019 by Calm

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Why? Who says the hard road is best? If that is the case should we intentionally seek hard roads? 

I understand that we can learn from challenges but its an idiotic mentality to think hardships are a wonderful thing especially when they are artificially imposed on us, sort of like Mormon Polygamy was.

God and his prophets and apostles sometimes say it is. No, we should not seek out hard roads but should endure well those we are given either by command or circumstance.

I do not consider the commandments of God to be “artificial”.

[ttribe]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

Is southern Utah the preponderance of evidence of that kind of marriage?

I submit that the abuses occurring within the FLDS are an excellent example of the types of abuses that creep into the system almost every single time it is institutionalized.  Number of wives as a symbol of power.  Younger and younger wives.  Young men ousted as competition. Just naming a few examples.

Edited March 28, 2019 by ttribe

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I don't see being less cooperative and acting more on reciprocal basis as immoral or even less moral unless you believe business and trading is inherently immoral.

It isn't what I would hope for my immediate family, but I see it as relatively common in all other forms of relationships.  Though altruism may become the basis when others see a need, if they see things as pretty equal in need, then relationships tend to be sustained best when there is a relatively equal give and take.

Transactional relationships have no place in the family.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

CFR please

Brigham Young advocated for incest at least in theory, as I'm sure you're aware. If not I'll provide a direct quote

In my own family history, on the polygamist LDS branch, there is incest in the form of marrying first cousins. I can't however provide a link to that, as it's my family history (diary entries)

 

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I submit that the abuses occurring within the FLDS are an excellent example of the types of abuses that creep into the system almost every single time it is institutionalized.  Number of wives as a symbol of power.  Younger and younger wives.  Young men ousted as competition. Just naming a fee examples.

I agree those are great examples.  But we can also put up examples of abuses that creep into monogamous marriages, right?

From this article:

The abuses so often cited by opponents of polygamy - sexual, physical, subjugation - are certainly not unique to multiple marriage, an expert testified Wednesday at a landmark B.C. court case examining Canada's ban on the practice.

Those abuses are found in all forms of marriage, not only those with multiple wives, said Oakland University's Todd Shackelford, an evolutionary psychologist whose work focuses on male aggression within marriage.

Prof. Shackelford was called to refute testimony that inevitably leads to physical and sexual abuse, the subjugation of women and familial conflict.

"I have been focusing my research on some of these many negative consequences in monogamous relationships, including men's violence, psychological, physical and sexual aggression against their partners," Prof. Shackelford said.

"In every such mating relationship - indeed in any sort of relationship - you will find there is conflict. … Polygyny [polygamy in which a man has multiple wives]doesn't have the market cornered on some of these negative consequences."

Later in the article a lawyer brings up the point that the question isn't whether or not harm happens in both monogamous and polygamous marriages, but at what frequency it happens in both marriages.  Sadly, he doesn't ever actually answer that question.  

I think my larger point though is that I don't know that we are accurately applying the 'good fruit/bad fruit' analogy here.   There are a lot of really good things (belief in God, love, service, marriage, parenthood) that have some really horribly bad fruit in their past, but we don't try to argue that the bad fruit means the whole tree is bad.

I think there are valid reasons to reject polygamy but I don't think 'it's has bad fruit' is one of them.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

In my own family history, on the polygamist LDS branch, there is incest in the form of marrying first cousins. I can't however provide a link to that, as it's my family history (diary entries)

 

But that is not a feature of polygamy.  Historically, incest was hugely popular in monogamous marriages.  Incest was the downfall of some of the most powerful monogamous families in history.