349
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
349 points (98.1% liked)
News
23397 readers
3649 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That last bit is such a ridiculously bad idea on so, so many levels.
First, as we have seen throughout history, any time multiple marriage is permitted, in practice it turns into polygyny, with a single man having multiple wives. This has a well-known destabilizing effect on societies. If you want to see what the practical result of having multiple marriages is, look at fundamentalist Mormons.
Second, from a legal standpoint, a divorce with just two people can already be incredibly complicated and expensive if one person is fighting it. If you add another person, it becomes vastly more complicated to legally sever.
There may be a gender cap then, no more than one person of each gender
Oh, that I'd be fine with.
Why does a man with multiple wives have a destabilizing effect on society?
Because--and this sounds icky--men with no options for mates tend to be more likely to engage in violent and antisocial behavior. When you look at fundamentalist Mormon communities, they end up making up reasons to excommunicate and expel young men from their communities so that they aren't competing with the Mormon elders for women. But those are largely isolated and small groups; once you expand that to an entire country, you end up needing to find a way to get rid of the competition in a more permanent way. Historically that's been war.
I can see how that would be a problem for a smaller, more insular religious community, but on a national scale you would have much more variation in relationships. Most people would probably still be monogamous, some would lean towards multiple wives, others multiple husbands, some more complex arrangements. The impact of any particular relationship pattern would be diluted by the size of the population.
When it's been legal on a country- or society-wide basis, the tendency has been for a relatively small number of very, very wealthy men to have a large number of wives, even while the majority of the remainder of the population has been monogamous. Women have--again, historically speaking--ended up being commodities.
The effects can be quite significant even if only a small number of people are practicing polygyny, particularly if you have a very small number of men that have a large number of wives (e.g., someone like Brigham Young who had 57 wives, or Warren Jeffs with 87 wives). If you look at relationships as a competition--which they very much are if you take a biological viewpoint--a single person like Warren Jeffs means that you have roughly 86 men that have no opportunities for partners at all.
Now imagine all 86 of those men becoming incels as a result, particularly in an age where it's easy for people to communicate their grievances and form communities online. Given that the US has been trending towards fewer rights for women (gee, thanks, Mr. Trump...), it's not hard to see women being fully commodified under a system that permitted polygamy or polygyny.
(To be clear: polygamy = multiple people in a marriage, with gender not specified, polyandry = one wife with multiple husbands, which has, AFAIK, only one historical analog (Joseph Smith Jr. notwithstanding, since his "spiritual marriages" were flatly illegal), and polygyny = one husband with multiple wives, which has many historical analogs. A single wife and many concubines is also fairly common; concubines were legally wives, but their children could not inherit position, wealth, or power from their father.)
I'm not sure that this would hold true if you made polygamy legal nationally today. While I agree that this has been the historical trend, it's also almost always been tied to high levels of religious fervency and few protections for women. While we can argue about whether the current situation on both fronts is trending one way or another, I think we can agree that it's certainly improved in the last century.
I doubt that a woman who wasn't living in a close-knit, isolated, religious community, would tolerate being in an exclusive relationship with a man who has 85 other wives.
I agree that treatment of women has trended towards better over the last century, but it appears that it is trending worse right now. And given that young men are becoming increasingly right-wing, I fear that this trend could continue. It's especially worrisome given that young men are trending to the right despite being less and less religious as a whole. We're seeing courts and legislatures erode many protections for women--especially in regards to reproductive rights--that had been the law of the land for nearly half a century in some cases. Obviously we're seeing a strong, sustained backlash against LGBTQ+ people, and that's even extending to opposition to things like legalizing interracial marriage.
I have known a number of women that have been trapped in unhappy and abusive relationships because they lacked the economic ability to leave. It's not far-fetched to imagine a wealthy person structuring a relationship to be economically punitive to any person that tried to exit. Shit, my ex-wife did her level best to bankrupt me and leave me homeless, and we were poor; if she'd had $50k to drop on an attorney, I would have been homeless. That's definitely a strong disincentive to leaving.
Abusive relationships aren't unique to polygamy. Assuming that they occur in polygamous relationships at roughly the same rate that they do in monogamous relationships, and that polygamous relationships are less common over all, I think it's unlikely that highly lopsided marriages would occur often enough that the number of single men would rise drastically and increase the likelihood of violence or civil unrest.
Even assuming that wealthy men, specifically, would acquire and maintain large harems of women who are dependent financially or otherwise, there's nothing stopping them from doing that now. All a marriage gets them is a higher risk of losing their wealth when one of their wives decides to leave.
Again: commodification. Wives as property. That's the problem, and the likely outcome of allowing polygamy. That's historically always been the problem, and given the way society appears to be going, that would likely be the problem.
47% of workers, 42% of managers, and roughly 62% of people engaged in polyamorous relationships are women. Women are financially, socially, and politically more powerful than at any time in the past, and if polyamorous relationships are anything to go by, then we should expect polygamous marriages to be skewed toward multiple men to each woman, rather than the other way around.
...You actually just demonstrated my point. If 62% percent of the people in polyamorous relationships are women, that means that there are fewer men 'monopolizing' more women. Socially, that's not a good thing. If you wanted to demonstrate that women had more power in relationships, you would need to show that there were fewer women in polyamorous relationship, e.g., that is was more common to have a single woman with multiple male partners, rather than a man with multiple female partners.
Sorry, I was in the middle of doing something else when I wrote that, and not thinking clearly.
Either way, polyamory is the biggest example of large scale, voluntary, non-religious, polygamy-like relationships that we have, and it's stabilized at +12% women, which is a far cry from the harems you've described. We've also been assuming that they're straight, which they are not. Some estimates put the prevalence of bisexuality at 50% among poly women, much higher than in the broader population.
Most examples of broadly polygamous societies were a long time ago, highly religious, and had no access to modern technology, transportation, or media. Women at the time could be kept as property because they were taught by their religion and culture that it was right, because they didn't have the ability to travel quickly to get away, because they often didn't have money or property, and because their society didn't recognize them as legal people.
None of this is true now.
Look around you. Look at Alabama, at Texas, at Louisiana, at the 'Freedom' caucus in the House, at consistent efforts to eliminate bodily autonomy for women, and roll back women's rights, and how those efforts are succeeding. Look at the way conservative states are limiting access to factual educational materials for children (and adults!) in public libraries, and they way that they're trying to limit speech online.
We're not far from regressing back to a point where women were property. We are dangerously close.
No, we're not.
There have been recent challenges to freedom of speech, bodily autonomy, and privacy, along with other developments that both of us disagree with and find to be dangerous. But there is a vast distance between where we currently are and a society in which women are considered property. Women hold roughly 30% of public offices (varying between about 25% and 35% depending on type of office), are about 20% of the US military, and as I said before, fill almost half the working and management positions in the country.
It is not possible to make women property or force them to be subservient at scale. They may not be equally represented everywhere, and there is certainly room for improvement, but they hold too much power for this to happen.