Monogamy wasn't invented for the benefit of women

[shaayecanaan]

it was invented for the benefit of men. Specifically, it was pioneered about three thousand years ago by the Greek city states who found it was necessary, for the sake of social stability, to minimise the number of discontented, socially unattached men. This was best done by maximising each man's prospects of marriage by limiting all men to one wife each. Of course, it was still perfectly fine for men to sleep with other women on the side (and it still is). But such women only had the status of concubines, floozies, prostitutes or slaves. They needed to marry to obtain any sort of station in life.

In a society without any kind of government safety net (which remains the case for three-quarters of humans living today) women typically need to marry in order to survive. Given that men die more often from infant mortality, war and famine, this means that generally women have a relatively limited pool of men from which to make their selection. It also means that in a society with strictly enforced monogamy, every man, no matter how violent or impoverished has a decent shot at obtaining a spouse.

Polygamy naturally affords women a greater variety of choices. A prospective bride doesn't necessarily have to resign herself to being the first wife of a destitute and desperate alcoholic if she has the alternative of becoming the second or third wife of a more stable and prosperous partner. It also means that in the event of war or famine depleting the pool of available men, that a woman will not necessarily have to resign herself to a life of solitude on society's margins. It is for these reasons that even the mainline Christian churches in Africa endorse polygamy, realising that it is the only viable social solution for these women.

Polygamy also tends to function as a crude form of socialism. It enables the more prosperous to have more children, which results in wealth being divided amongst more people and a tendency to avoid the over-concentration of wealth that has occurred in western societies.

[WestCoastLib]

1. You may be referring to legal marriage because...

The greeks did not invent monogomy.

But then, the greeks "invented" many things that exist froma legal sense, and terminology that we use, which shouldnt come as a surprise since they also concepted democracy.

[pnwmom]

2. What utter nonsense. Polygamy was invented for the benefit of powerful men. n/t

[shaayecanaan]

4. Polygamy was never invented

because we practised it before we were even human. No one had ever conceived of something called monogamy until Greek men cooked it up in response to changing social situations.

Even in its early days, monogamy wasn't set in stone - eg the "one-man, one-wife" rule in Greece was actually suspended during the Peloponnesian war due to massive male casualties and a corresponding shortage of marriageable men.

[pnwmom]

11. The legal system of polygamy was invented by powerful men.

That is some what people here have been calling for -- the legal recognition of polygamous marriages.

[TexasProgresive]

3. Did the Greek invention of monogamous marriage

Migrate to China and Japan? I will grant that the Greeks may have legally sanctioned monogamous matrimony but I don't see any proof in this citation. In fact it would be difficult to prove.

[shaayecanaan]

6. Polygamy was only formally outlawed in 1945 in Japan

although it was pretty outmoded by that time (probably for the same reasons that it became outmoded in Greece). In any event I don't think that Japan dispensed with polygamy before the Greeks did.

Its also worth pointing out that monogamy is not a Christian institution, but a Greek Hellenic institution that the early Christian church assimilated and thenceforth promoted it as its own (neither the New nor the Old Testament has a word to say against polygamy and indeed much to say in its favour).

[riderinthestorm]

13. It was only practiced by very small cults and was/is not a normative societal value

just like there are still laws on the books against atheism or spitting on the sidewalks, the date a certain practice is finally banned means nothing.

Your making up a lot of "facts" without substantiation.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. The New Testament has Jesus giving very direct man and wife, no divorce forever guidelines.

Neither book says a word in favor of polygamy although it is depicted it is not lauded nor endorsed in those texts. Your claims are incorrect. Jesus called taking a second wife 'adultery' even when sequential and not concurrent.

[shaayecanaan]

21. Rubbish

Jesus was referring to having a bit on the side, or putting aside one's existing wife. He never said a word against having a second wife.

Given that God frequently awarded his favourites with multiple wives (eg Job) one could confidently say that he approved of the practice.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. He most certainly did. Sorry but it's the text.

I'm just reading old texts which say 'take another wife, that's adultery'. Your claim, by the way, was that Old and New Testaments had 'much to say in favor of polygamy' and I defy you, challenge you to cite what the fuck you think you are talking about. The New Testament does not in any way speak favorably of polygamy, nor does the Old, it tells of it but it does not favorably editorialize on polygamy, says nothing favorable at all. The New Testament epistles for example, allow for younger widows to remarry, for they are to be one wife men. This is what it says. More than once.
But feel free to post the extensive favorable teachings about polygamy from both Testaments. It's a hilarious assertion.

[Mojorabbit]

57. There were instances in the bible

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

[Warpy]

35. There are also references in Chinese literature to second wife, third wife, etc.

while the first wife is very much alive and in residence. In addition, concubinage was also common for wealthy men. Poorer men, of course, were lucky to afford one wife.

Marriage customs vary widely, or did. Polyandry was the practice in Nepal and Sikkim until very recently (and still might be in rural areas) because when a man had more than one son, he didn't want to divide his property, so they all married the same woman. She was expected to produce children by all of them, going in birth order from eldest to youngest.

The only form of marriage I'd ever be able to tolerate is the "walking marriage" of the Miao people in China. Fortunately, I'm old and ugly so the problem will never arise.

[riderinthestorm]

9. China, Japan, Native American cultures etc - all of whom are older than Greece

have monogamous histories.

I think this is a lot of wishful thinking and historical revisionism to suit the agenda.

[shaayecanaan]

12. I don't know much about native American societies

but it would appear from a bit of brief googling that Native American society was not, generally speaking, institutionally monogamous:-

http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/1084

[riderinthestorm]

16. This is historical revisionism and its pretty badly done

your taking small outliers and cults and extrapolating them onto entire societies.

Your trying to find facts to fit a pre-arranged conclusion and that's just bad history.

You haven't presented any source material substantiating your claims and have overlooked other older cultures that have been monogamous.

Just because the Buddhist royal king in Tibet could have two wives doesn't meant "Tibet" has a history of polygamy.

[shaayecanaan]

19. A couple of points

by dint of simple arithmetic, the average man in any given society (whether polygamous or not) will generally only be able to marry one wife (if that). It is generally only the more prosperous males in a society that will be able to obtain more.

I am happy to point to whatever sources you require in relation to polygamy in China, Japan, Tibet and elsewhere. It is not difficult to establish that polygamy was at least tolerated in those societies until recently.

Eg:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_marriage#Polygamy

Traditional Chinese culture does not prohibit nor explicitly encourage polygyny (one man, multiple women), except as a way to obtain male children.

Two factors limit the scope of the practice: the number of available women; and the financial resources of the man, since he must have the ability to support the women. This attitude mostly limits polygyny to parts of the upper to middle classes; while among the rest of the population monogamy can be regarded as more common. Historical written records probably convey a skewed impression with regard to the actual prevalence of polygamy, since one can safely assume that they over-represent the élite.

[Warpy]

36. Not entirely, see above

[riderinthestorm]

5. Kewl story bro!

[Skittles]

7. I have never needed a man to "survive"

f*** that

and f*** any society that make a woman feel like she need a man to survive

[shaayecanaan]

8. Probably because you've never been hungry enough

for the truly poor, children are about the only social security net there is, however offensive that notion may be to you.

[closeupready]

29. Predictable DU. Two people who agree, but who disagree on

agreement.

Skittles repudiates patriarchal social orders; you seem to, as well. You make an observation about how women adapt in order to survive; Skittles condemns the need to adapt in a way dissonant with a healthy life, affirming that the observation is valid.

Where do you two disagree exactly...?

I repeat, another day, another DU thread where people refuse to agree even though ultimately, they agree.

[shaayecanaan]

30. Fair point

A: This is what it is.

B: Yes, but it is not what it ought to be.

A: But it is what it is.

B: Yes, but not what it ought to be.

Etc.

If all such arguments ended in agreement the chattering classes would kill themselves out of boredom, and the internet would cease to exist. Apart from all the porn, I suppose.

[Skittles]

41. did you miss my last sentence?

[shaayecanaan]

48. No

I hereby grant you that three-quarters of the world's humankind are duly "fucked", pursuant to your last sentence.

Anything else?

[Skittles]

49. take some reading comprehension classes, PLEASE

I don't have time or patience for this crap

[shaayecanaan]

56. You don't have much in the way of writing skills either

apparently.

[Warpy]

37. Going it alone can be very satisfying

I've done it since I shed an alcoholic 30 years ago. Most of the time, I wouldn't have it any other way. The key is being able to support ourselves.

We're not all the marrying kind.

[Skittles]

42. I just don't do all the bullshit people expect from women

and I've managed to support myself just fine without a man OR a college degree

[RobinA]

67. Fine

so have I. But have you done so by working? We have an advantage of living in a time (and a place) when women are allowed to work. This was not always the case.

[Bad Thoughts]

10. Second Wife ... Third Wife?

That's the problem, in essence: hierarchy.

[shaayecanaan]

15. True

but a woman may decide (quite reasonably, quite rationally, and in her own self-interest) that she wishes to be the sheikh's second wife rather than the pauper's first wife.

Or, in other words, hierarchy is unavoidable, it is merely a question of whether you wish to see it in its totality or not.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. Wow.

amazing

[PowerToThePeople]

18. Socialism would remove hierarchy

At least ecomonic hierarchy.

[shaayecanaan]

20. Yes

I wouldn't think it necessary or desirable for a country like Iceland. However, in the United States the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer, and the gap is accelerating. Its only a matter of time before we have the same feudal societal structure that makes polygamy more or less inevitable.

I always marvel at the dim-witted centrists on this board who think that problems like prostitution can be dispensed with, without addressing the economic problems in the US today. In many poor places, women either work in the rag-and-bone trade (recycling garbage) or in prostitution. It is not just the men who hire these women who are complicit in their prostitution, the rich white feminists that benefit from the impoverishment of the global poor have their share of blame as well.

[sgtbenobo]

52. Longhouses of the indigenous peoples of North America

snip// On average a typical longhouse was about 80 by 18 by 18 ft (24.4 by 5.5 by 5.5 m) and was meant to house up to twenty or more families, most of whom were matrilineally related. The people had a matrilineal kinship system, with property and inheritance passed through the maternal line. Children were born into the mother's clan. //snip

Then, we turned up and sane became crazy.

Carry on?

[Warpy]

39. Domestic plural marriages among consenting adults

can be close to anarchy among the women, who decide among themselves how to share work loads. Hierarchy belongs to the male because there's only one of him. Well, at least he thinks so.

The one plural family I knew well ended when the wives had enough of him and threw him out, but continued living with each other because that part of the marriage had worked.

[MattBaggins]

50. Ayn Rand fan aren't you

[mythology]

22. Wow, this is some seriously delusional nonsense

You can claim that monogamy was invented to help men (which it certainly does), but then you still have to deal with the fact that polygamist societies have a shit ton of negative outcomes for women such as higher rates of domestic violence, lower educational levels and higher levels of crime such as rape, which women are the primary victims of.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/01/the_problem_with_polygamy.html

Your argument is merely bunk.

[shaayecanaan]

26. That is confusing causation with correlation

most societies in which polygamy occurs tend to be poorer, and have less access to resources and opportunities, both for monogamous and polygamous marriages. It is also true that polygamy creates a class of unattached men who will naturally tend towards violence. I wouldn't necessarily want to be married to those men though; presumably the women who passed up the opportunity themselves thought the same.

I read the Slate article, which rather unhelpfully doesn't cite the one study that might have actually advanced its argument:- that children of monogamous marriages fare better than children from polygamous marriages. It appears that the study to which they refer is this one:-

Elbedour, Salman, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, Corin Cardidine, and Hasan Abu-Saad (2002).‘The Effect of Polygamous Marital Structure on Behavioral, Emotional, and Academic Adjustment in Children: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature’,
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
5: 255-71.

A link to the abstract is here:-

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1020925123016#page-1

The central argument being advanced by the study's authors is that children fare better in "traditional" family structures consisting of a biological mother and father, which is certainly an interesting argument to be endorsing here on DU.

I suspect this is why Slate didn't actually cite the study - they didnt actually want people to read it - but its pretty damn disingenuous anyway.

[panader0]

24. Polygamy goes both ways.

Why shouldn't a woman have several husbands-?

[shaayecanaan]

27. No argument from me

although I can't think of many women that I know that would be interested.

[Nay]

59. What woman would be interested in having several husbands? For many of us, it's hard

enough to keep up sexually with one man, and then to live in a likely frat house atmosphere, too? And are we imagining that all these men do their own housework and cooking, too? I'll pass.

[betsuni]

25. Anthropologist Marvin Harris:

"We know that modern-day mating and childrearing systems are constantly adjusting to levels of technological competence, population density, deployment of males and females in production, and local environmental conditions. Polygyny prevails, for example, where there is an abundance of land and a shortage of labor so their men can become prosperous by adding additional wives and children to their households. ... At the opposite extreme, polyandry represents an adjustment to extreme scarcity of resources. It occurs in Tibet, where agricultural land is so scarce that two or three brothers are willing to share one wife in order to limit the number of heirs to mediate levels of population pressure and land scarcity. Monogamy seems to prevail at intermediate levels of population pressure and land scarcity. Many other factors may be relevant in particular cases. Ecclesiastical and political policies, themselves rooted in particular conditions, may enjoin one or another mating system. ... In sum, each of these variations is 'natural' as the other, since each represents a socially constructed pattern of mating dictated by prevailing social and natural conditions, rather than by specific genetic instructions. It is certainly human nature to have a powerful sex drive and appetite, and it is certainly human nature to be able to find diverse ways of satisfying these species-given needs and appetites. But it is not human nature to be exclusively promiscuous or polyandrous or monogamous or polygynous." (From "Our Kind.&quot

[IVoteDFL]

28. I'm a woman and I do not believe monogamy is natural

I think a lot of people believe that the only ones who practice polyamory are crazy religious types. In today's society that is not always the case.

I do think that a lot has to be adjusted to allow for polygamy to be legal, but I see no reason why we should not strive for it.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

32. Why?? Absolutely destructive to women. Are these men who are fucking around with all the women they

want being tested for sexually transmitted diseases?

The women in these relationships are miserable because they have to share their men with other women.

That shit is disgusting. Filthy!

[IVoteDFL]

33. At one point marriage in itself was destructive to women

It's what works for me personally.

Not every polyamorous relationship is what you describe. In America it definitely is not the norm. Nor are men are exclusive to "fucking around", and of course that isn't what it is when all consenting adults enter into a household/marriage of more than one person.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

34. Describe the benefits to women. Are there any? What are the responsibilities of the men?

Just to fuck the women and have babies with them?

What if all the women are professional women and don't want to be treated like slaves?

[IVoteDFL]

65. Polygamy isn't necessarily one man + several women.

Though it is the more common of the two. Personally, we welcome both men and women into our relationship. The benefits? extra companionship, more sex, more people to share the household expenses and chores. Of course this isn't polygamy because it is not legal, it's polyamory.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

72. If society accepted Polyandry, I could see that and perhaps get down with this. But more often than

not, it seems that the focus is ONLY on polygamy, which allows one man to have as many wives as he wants. I don't care what anyone says: that is a dangerous institution--no better than monogamy--because it does not allow for women to exercise agency over their own bodies, their own lives, and often the lives of their children.

It is sexist, by definition (one man, more than one woman)--and misogynist by nature!

It if works for you and your friends, good. That's your business.

[RobinA]

69. Then They Don't

involve themselves in polygamy. No one is advocating forced multiple spouses any more than anyone said legal gay marriage equals mandatory gay marriage.

Each woman and man has to decide for him/herself if she wants to go that route. Or get off that route. So many of these arguments imply that women need to be protected from their choices.

[asturias31]

53. The problem is with "consent".

The two American women I know in plural marriages were both devastated by their husband's act. However their religion gives the husband the right to take up to four wives without the consent of the previous wives. Mainstream beliefs of the faith also include:

- a wife must obey her husband unless he commands her to do something haram (sinful)
- Mohammed's wives (who obeyed him and tolerated his polygamy) were the 'best of women' and a role model to all women in the faith.
- a woman may only work if her husband permits it.
- the father (mahram, or guardian) of an unmarried woman has great power over her decisions; an abusive guardian can easily force his daughter into marriage for his own benefit.

Add it all up, and consider the insular nature of the community (rebelling against religious and cultural demands can carry an extreme price for US Muslim women, though theoretically they live in free America) and you can see that the "consent" of both first and subsequent wives is coerced. They consent because the religion first awards men great power over them, then harangues them to obediently accept their lot, and finally makes it very hard for them to live as single or divorced females.

It really kills me that people invoke "consent" as if means anything to people with little power to refuse. Don't be naive.

[IVoteDFL]

66. I stress, not everyone who would enter into a polygamous marriage is religious

Yes there are people who abuse it. There are people who abuse marriage in general, as you pointed out in your post. Many if not most religions demand that women be subservient to their husbands. We don't ban all marriages though. That is ridiculous.

Furthermore, like I said in my last post, polygamy does not have to be one man and many women.

[fizzgig]

44. that's some pretty judgmental, broadbrush stuff there

there are people in open relationships who practice very safe sex and get tested regularly. i know women who make the choice to be in open relationships. some women may be forced into such relationships, but not all are.

as far as disgusting and filthy, it is not either of our places to judge. i don't share well, but it's not my business what other consenting adults do.

[fizzgig]

47. natural is an extremely relative term

especially when it comes to sexuality and relationships.

i know full well that there are non-fundie people in poly relationships and i also know full well it takes a lot to actually make them work.

i'm monogamous by nature but i by no means believe all people are.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

31. Polygamy = an excuse for men to be irresponsible and use women as sex objects...and have sex

with all the women they choose in a "legal" way. The women have NO say in this patriarchal, disgusting arrangement.

Women are treated as sex slaves and chattel.

No thanks. I'll take my chances with monogamy.

Interesting none of these pro-polygamous people never suggest polyandry.

[shaayecanaan]

38. Nothing illegal about using women as sex objects

nor is it illegal to have as many women on the side as you like, as long as you're deceptive and secretive about it.

This is the weird thing about polygamy. We all treat it as if it's some terrible thing, like incest, but actually, the weird thing is… If you deceive someone by having a mistress and a whole family, it's not against the law. But if you said to two women, "Look, I love you both, you absolutely splendid, how would it be if I married both of you?" and they said "Okay", that would be breaking the law.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

40. Who said anything about illegality? I stated that I don't agree that infected dicks infecting women

all over should be MADE legal.

If you do, fine.

Can't convince me.

[shaayecanaan]

45. I'm not sure that polygamy necessarily involves a greater prevalence of infected dicks

statistically, places where polygamy is practised tend to not have higher rates of HIV infection, for example (although probably this is because those places tend to be more socially chaste and tend to involve young people marrying earlier).

To be honest, this seems reminiscent of Christian objections to gay rights/marriage - ie equating gays with HIV or STDs.

[kcr]

43. Since when did not illegal mean the right thing to do?

The bar one sets for oneself for personal behavior should not simply be whether or not something is legal.

[shaayecanaan]

46. Its not. I'm not suggesting that you should have a gay marriage

because it may not be right for you. I'm suggesting that you should have the opportunity to do so, because it really isn't my business getting involved in the sexual lives of consenting adults.

[kcr]

51. Yes, but consenting adults is also not the only issue.

It's a very individualistic POV and that's fine if you're a Libertarian living in a fantasy bubble world. But not everyone is. I rather prefer civilization and know that my actions and the actions of others have consequences for other people. So, in deciding whether to support anything, the mere fact of consenting adults' involvement alone isn't enough.

Polygamous marriage isn't the the same as gay marriage. The cults that abuse and exploit women and children would be further entrenched. This is the reason why I say it isn't analogous to gay marriage and it is insulting to claim otherwise. It's also much more difficult for states to reconfigure their laws.

[JustAnotherGen]

58. Actually - I thought

He was promoting the idea of women marrying for money and trading up as soon as something better comes along.

I E Choosing the sheik (oil money) over the pauper.

This op isn't going to go well if MRA types find this. You know the type - they buy a bride from a developing world country then she trades up once she gets here - and they get mad.

This scenario proposed - really makes men disposable.

[shaayecanaan]

60. Essentially, yes

polygamy isn't nearly as hard on women as it is on the men who miss out, particularly when you consider, for example, the involuntary exile of young men from fundamentalist Mormon communities. At least the women get a choice.

[JustAnotherGen]

63. Girls don't get a choice in the fundamentalist Mormon community

If you are talking consenting adults - aok.

To make your argument - you should take those folks out in Colorado, Arizona, etc etc off the table. Many of those are under age girls.

Other than that - I'm backing away. We have some MRA types at DU (lurkers) and its harder for them to get to you - than me.

You're on your own!

[gwheezie]

54. In the future I would like no such thing as marriage

For now it's important because there are societal perks to being married. I'm female. I've had relationships with more than one person at a time. They knew about it. And I've been in exclusive relationships without being married. The only reason I married my husband was because in order to include my salary in obtaining a va mortgage, we had to be married. And there were tax benefits. We were together married and unmarried for 34 years. I wasn't going to leave him no matter what our status was.
I support marriage equality in the time we're in because there are benefits to being married.

[sgtbenobo]

55. Will someone please remind me....

....why do we have to apply to get married in the first place?

Smells like, social engineering. Keeping people from caring for each other is inherently wrong. If people want to get married to one or all should be their business.

[romanic]

61. Pseudo intellectual bullshit.

[shaayecanaan]

62. I knocked it out on my phone in about five minutes

whilst I was sitting on the shitter at work. I'm not sure how intellectual you wanted it to be, in the circumstances, but having clicked on your name and examined your recent posts, I'm confident that it comfortably exceeds in intellectual import just about anything that you have ever put up.

[bklyncowgirl]

64. The ancient Egyptians too, except for the king, were monogamus.

Having more than one wife was a perquisite of the divine king (and a good insurance policy in case the principle wife did not provide a male heir) but as far as scholars have been able to tell, there are no undisputed cases of polygamy among the non-royal elite.

This may be due to the relatively strong property rights held by Egyptian women. If the husband died or in case of divorce, except when adultery or other wrongdoing could be proved on the part of the woman, the wife was entitled to 1/3 of the property the couple had accumulated since their marriage in addition all the property she had brought into the marriage. More wives meant less property to distribute to the children.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

68. show me a country/society where both gender equality and polygamy is legal.

[joeybee12]

71. Monagamy was not invented...marriage was invented...

They didn't force all these polygamous people to somehow turn monogamous...what an utter epic fail.