|
Post by meep on Oct 5, 2009 5:58:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Oct 5, 2009 6:16:47 GMT -5
Well this Karen lady at the comment section answered him pretty well actually lol
|
|
|
Post by meep on Oct 5, 2009 7:00:49 GMT -5
^ I thought so too.
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Oct 5, 2009 9:34:49 GMT -5
Well this Karen lady at the comment section answered him pretty well actually lol Polygamy isn't actually a bad deal for women--in the context of other rights. How women wouldn't actually want to become a Mrs. Gates? Informal harems already exist. Women fly to countries to become the exclusive partners of wealthy men. With polygamy--and marriage--at least it becomes a legal open contract. Polygamy isn't any better or worse than polygamous behavior. If the laws of the state and contractual obligations are enforced, it should be a better deal for women. It's men that stand to lose. Mistresses won't stand for sitting in the dark. Legalization of polygamy won't change behavior, but it can change the balance of power and representation. Men have and always will try to support multiple women if they have the resources and the skill to do so. Rather than being a sexist issue, polygamy/monogamy is an inter-sexist issue, a woman-vs-woman issue: Whose children will he favor? Not her's I hope. Who does he spend more time with? Not her I hope. I am the first wife. What does she know? As in the stories of the empress and the concubines, the hatred of women is usually reserved for each other--not men. Hence, monogamy is legal right of a woman to kick another woman onto the streets while simultaneously blaming the man.
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Oct 5, 2009 12:21:26 GMT -5
From the article: "While Islam sanctions polygyny, it does not condone threesomes."
Booooo!
"Islam also does not permit polyandry, a form of relationship in which a wife takes more than one husband. There are many reasons for this. Some are medical, some relate to paternity. Others pertain to the sexual proclivities of the different genders. The sex therapist Bettina Arndt, promoting her book Sex Diaries, outlined the merits of women saying "yes" more often to sex with their husbands. If Arndt's research is reflective of a greater portion of the population, a monogamous relationship leads to reduced interest in sex among women and a perpetual state of conjugal frustration among men."
Well, while this does reek of sexism and patriarchy, there is some truth there. I don't think there is a serious argument that men want sex less than women. However, the author has clearly viewed an insufficient amount of gangbang porn - there are SOME women that could certainly satisfy a great many husbands, so it is not exactly fair for Islam to make such an arbitrary division between polyandry and polygamy.
Overall the article is well written but not entirely persuasive, because it seems like a series of legal, secular, and biological arguments that are being made to justify a status quo that is in large part grounded in medieval patriarchy and religion. Commenter Karen might be right about a double standard here, but I would lean towards permitting both types of relationships, even though I recognize that polygamy is historically an institution that emerges in patriarchal societies and that can potentially lead to abuse of women.
I support adults entering whatever type of consensual relationships they want, sexual or otherwise, so I'm fine with polygamy/polyandry/ multi-partner civil unions/big ganbang marriage collectives. I just don't want them based on someone's religion and I don't want them to discriminate - if we must forbid some people from entering such relationships, we should do so on non-discriminatory grounds (like we do already by stipulating an age of consent and minimum age for marriage, and by creating legal protections from physical and mental abuse within relationships, protection of children, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Oct 5, 2009 13:36:42 GMT -5
Well, while this does reek of sexism and patriarchy, there is some truth there. I don't think there is a serious argument that men want sex less than women. However, the author has clearly viewed an insufficient amount of gangbang porn - there are SOME women that could certainly satisfy a great many husbands, so it is not exactly fair for Islam to make such an arbitrary division between polyandry and polygamy. In many ways, you can't have polygamy without polyandry. If the sex ratio is relatively balanced and some men are going to have multiple wives then the women who are not married to these men become the polyandrous "public wife". "Public wives" was the name given to Babylonian? prostitutes. That is, in place of a wife and family that a man might not be able to support, he could give patronage to local prostitute (public wife). When a Babylonian woman came of age, she went to the local temple. A passing stranger would flip a coin onto her dress--as was the custom--and then they'd go inside where she would lose her virginity. This reinforced the concept that these (lower caste) women were destined for polyandrous relationships. The arrangement of some men having many women and a few women having many men, had certain societal benefits. The main advantage was militaristic. Since many men did not have "private wives", they were more ready to go to war as spouses and family tend to hold them back--which is still true for modern soldiers. Kingdoms could be mobilized more easily. Another societal benefit could have been a reduction in the number of single mothers. Single mothers and their children represent over 70% of households living beneath the poverty line--and that is just the U.S. A public wife would have the support of many men--if she were to have children. Many men would also not have had the opportunity to fail in their paternal obligations resulting in poverty for the abandoned family. Even if these women weren't to enter into polyandrous or polygamous relationships, they'd most likely come to depend on another male: their father or grandfathers. Reminds me of what a feminist once said about the terrible need for women create an identity out of their attachment to other males. Men aren't so complex. We f***k, we fight, and we die.
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Oct 5, 2009 14:40:50 GMT -5
You are on to something Palaver, but I wouldn't go so far as to equate prostitution with polyandry. The social goal of marriage traditionally is to promote stability, division of property, and children. At least in many societies, prostitution doesn't really lead to any of those things -it provides a source of income to poor women, but doesn't entail any greater obligation on the part of the male clientele, child or no child. The guy in the article is arguing for formalization of those relationships, whereas prostitution (like having a mistress) is by its nature usually furtive, anonymous, and arms length transactions.
"Another societal benefit could have been a reduction in the number of single mothers. Single mothers and their children represent over 70% of households living beneath the poverty line--and that is just the U.S. A public wife would have the support of many men--if she were to have children. Many men would also not have had the opportunity to fail in their paternal obligations resulting in poverty for the abandoned family."
Perhaps you just need to elaborate on where and when men were forced to care for their "public wives" when these were prostitutes. It's one thing for nobleman to pay their mistress by giving a title and some land to their illegitimate offspring, but it's quite another for your average soldier or scurrilous sailor to be forced to marry and/or support a prostitute that they knocked up.
As I see it, the problem of single mothers in poverty would not be resolved by having multiple male partners, and while polyandry might help, they might want to start with one husband before moving on to the second and third.
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Oct 5, 2009 17:45:33 GMT -5
You are on to something Palaver, but I wouldn't go so far as to equate prostitution with polyandry. The social goal of marriage traditionally is to promote stability, division of property, and children. Children isn't a social goal. It's a biological goal already covered by sex. And divorce promotes the "division of property" more than marriage. Traditional marriage is a culturally loaded phrase, which why I described past cultures. Marriage and family is one scale above the individual, a social unit that has varied in size and composition. "Tradition" has generally failed in immobilizing this dynamic. That is not the case where prostitution is legal--and only recently have mistresses become taboo. Open prostitution has culture of its own which I will not discuss here. But this novella by Gabriel García Márquez might pique your interest: Memories of My Melancholy Whores. Also, polygamous men (and Muslim men) are quite protective of their women. Do you not recount the Arab tales of secret harems guarded by castrated slaves (eunuchs)? It was always the men who who were punished for violating this inner sanctum--quite different from the modern monogamous stoning of an adulteress. It almost seems as if the common people are not fit enough to enter the institution of marriage. The same way in which most married men care for their spouses and their children--they provide an income. Or did you think prostitutes naturally quit after their first child? Not polyandry, but polygamy. Given the obscene disparities in wealth distribution that exists today, there are more resources to be shared among the top 1% than the bottom 95%. Rather than pick through the bottom of the barrel and support their offspring on economic scraps, these women are better off in polygamous relationships with wealthy men. As for polyandry, those poor candidates for fathers are well served by prostitutes--I have a feeling they treat the mother of their children no differently. Don't I sound like Bill Cosby...
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Oct 5, 2009 20:02:57 GMT -5
There are still some people in the Himaliyas (dam my spelling) who practice polygamy/polyandry. In ancient times certain nomadic tribes also practiced it though for completely different reasons. There are always reasons for it. Militarily it has benefits. A good example of how a functional polyandrous society worked can be Sparta. From many sources it seems Spartans were encouraged to share their wives - as one's own individual family unit is secondary to the concerns of the unified militaristic state. The "White Hun" or "Hephtalite" nomadic confederation also practiced polygamy/polyandry. 'More kiddies for the grinder' in other words. Kinda funny to think about really... Typical day among the Hephtalites: Nomad 1: "Hey bro, your wife is hot, I wanna f--k her" Nomad 2: "Go ahead, but I want yours too" Nomad 1: "But she's already pregnant with your kid!" Nomad 2: "Oh yeah... I forgot, nevermind then just f--k my wife" Heh, ancient swinger parties. ;D Reminds me of my wife's cutest response to this: "Hey! I'm not some sl-t that you pass around to your mates!" Hehe
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Oct 5, 2009 23:36:13 GMT -5
^The same way in which most married men care for their spouses and their children--they provide an income.
That's a very narrow view of the male role and responsibility as a husband and father. Women can work in prostitution or non-prostitution professions to earn income (at least these days, obviously less so in the past), but their incomes (and standard of living - don't forget indivisible goods) will still be lower and less stable than those of women who do the same AND have husbands. Then there's the problem of aging.
Anyway, we clearly agree about formalizing/legalizing these types of relationships, so I probably need not keep arguing that the secretive/illegal/informal type of prostitution leads to worse outcomes than the polyandrous alternative, where by polyandry I mean "marriage" and the social and legal sanction that entails, rather than a woman simply sleeping with lots of men.
|
|