Totally OT!: The Lovin' Y
POSTED BY: Sarahetc
UPDATED: Saturday, March 8, 2003 19:45
VIEWED: 15042
PAGE 7 of 7
modern (last few thousand years or so) polygamy may have distant roots in evolutionary strategies, but is based on the concept of daughters and women as chattel. Chattel is not quite property. It refers to things that must be managed, like land, but are portable, like livestock.
Women as self-sufficient individuals is a fairly modern concept, only a few hundred years old. Women as self-determining persons is very new, something like a century. Just look around outside the US, you'll see what it was like.
Most religions are male-centric, with the diety, prophets, and representatives restricted to males. I'm not versed in the multitude of bibles, but most were clearly written by and for men. Recall that biblical king David had 400+ wives.
woops, lunch over, more later
tanstaafl
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfhawk:
modern (last few thousand years or so) polygamy may have distant roots in evolutionary strategies, but is based on the concept of daughters and women as chattel. Chattel is not quite property. It refers to things that must be managed, like land, but are portable, like livestock.
Women as self-sufficient individuals is a fairly modern concept, only a few hundred years old. Women as self-determining persons is very new, something like a century. Just look around outside the US, you'll see what it was like.
Most religions are male-centric, with the diety, prophets, and representatives restricted to males. I'm not versed in the multitude of bibles, but most were clearly written by and for men. Recall that biblical king David had 400+ wives.
woops, lunch over, more later
tanstaafl
To my (admittedly very limited) knowledge, I don't know of any religious mandate anywhere to have multiple wives. More to the point, I have never heard a major religion requires it. In fact, major religions previously allowing multiple wives have and are going through monogamous reform. Despite The Prophet's writings and habits, the Church of Latter Day Saints no longer recognizes polygamous union.
Now to tie all this rambling together.
Man administrates religion, and until very recently, men administrated women. In some cases, religious and civil law still allow men to have multiple wives, but do not require it. It is hardly suprising that the historical attitude of women as chattel would be supported by religion.
Yet, polygamy wasn't/isn't mandatory. Basically, if you could afford it, you could take extra wives. During most of the time and places polygamy was supported, polygamy was a rich man's game. Are you suprised that rich, influential, religious men had many wives? Sure, Joe Blacksmith could grab him some extra wives, but he was working himself to death to support his household with just one wife. More well-to-do men might offer brideprice on an extra wife or two, essentially 'buying' a live-in maid/mistress.
No, monogamy is the best way to populate, the cheapest way to procreate, and the cornerstone of every popular reformed religion. Polygamy, as practiced historically, was expensive, and a sure way to piss off the other men of your community.
I think that polygamy was never encouraged, and except as a reward or charitable necessity(taking in of widows), limited to the top men of their times. They didn't have Ferrari's then, so were forced to collect wives instead.
tanstaafl
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The reason I ask is that I saw an episode of some documentary show that showed "fundamentalist" mormons not only practicing polygamy, but incest with that polygamy. I think they said there was a line in their bible that said something to the effect of in so long as they are virgins, you may take as many wives as you can.
From what I gathered, only the fundamentalist mormons still practice it, but they keep their wives, who are in many cases also their neices, virtual prisoners with the whole lack of education, strictly monitored, etc.
I was just trying to figure out why women weren't allowed multiple husbands from a religious point of view. I understand how many religious practices stem from politcal reasons, I was just wondering if there was something I missed.
______________________
Lost Angel
WASH: Psychic, though? That sounds like something out of science fiction.
ZOE: We live in a space ship, dear.
WASH: So?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfhawk:
Polygamy, as practiced historically, was expensive, and a sure way to piss off the other men of your community.
I think that polygamy was never encouraged, and except as a reward or charitable necessity(taking in of widows), limited to the top men of their times. They didn't have Ferrari's then, so were forced to collect wives instead.
I don’t see it. I am like you in the respect that I don’t have any great knowledge of religion, but I do know a little bit on the subject of cultural polygamy.
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfhawk:
Polygamy, as practiced historically, was expensive, and a sure way to piss off the other men of your community.
Maybe you are thinking about one particular culture where polygamy isn’t the norm for everyone. (Such as polygamy in the United States where one a few people practice it). I remember a few years ago, when ever I heard about polygamy I used to think about rich sheiks in the middle east and their 40 or 50 wife’s. But today, the cultures that come to mind when I think about polygamy don’t have these problems you are talking about.
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfhawk:
Polygamy, as practiced historically, was expensive,…
Generally, polygamy isn’t being practiced as the rich sheiks do or have done. Women are not objects, but workers. A man who is married to many women may be considered richer than a man who is only married to one woman, but it is not solely because he “owns” more women. Most brides, and their families pay money to the groom, and his side of the family when they marry, instead of the other way around. And these wife’s will then work on a farm, or create products to sell, such as clothing, and support the family. Sometimes when a man plans to marry a woman she will ask that he also marries her sister, that way when they move far away, back to his home, she can have her sister along with her.
In other cultures where the form of polygamy they practice is where a woman can have many husbands, the reason fits their lifestyle. In one culture different men are gone different times of the year for months at a time hunting and trading. In this culture the women each take a few husbands. In the end, it works out that each husband is home in roughly equal intervals, and sometimes more than one husband is home at a time. This system works out for many reason, one is because there are fewer women in this culture compared to men. Having more husbands means each woman has a larger income, and everyone is taken care of. Men always have someone to come home to, and the women always have some one at home.
Quote:
…and a sure way to piss off the other men of your community. I think that polygamy was never encouraged, and except as a reward or charitable necessity…
As I said before, maybe you are thinking about a culture where the mainstream views are not that with polygamy, but in cultures where they believe in polygamy, people are not upset by it. I’m sure there is one man who may not like it, but I only say that because in every culture there is someone who is upset by something. Also, polygamy is only practiced when it is convenient, and fitting with the culture. A group that has 50 men, and 50 women would probably not agree to polygamy, but a group of people like the Mormons in Utah are not “depleting the supply” of women in their area by practicing polygamy. There are thousand of other women for men to seek out so no one is left alone or “pissed off”.
Sorry LostAngel, I know this isn’t what you asked about, but I can’t help myself, this is an intresting topic. And thanks Wulfhawk, it is nice to find someone intelligent to debate these kinds of things with.
-------------------------------------
Jayne: Hey, I didn't fight in no war. Best of luck, though.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kayt, I'm unaware of any culture today that practices polygamy in the fashions you describe.
In Saudi Arabia, money and influence means men can, and often do, take extra wives. This isn't much about being religious, though religion allows it. It's about culture and history. Hareems are part of the culture, past and present. And the extra men, those without wives or prospects, can always be dragged into the army. And while I was exaggerating about 'pissed off', it's clear that, without some kind of monarchy/oligarchy to support it, institutional polygamy is doomed.
If you're talkin India, or further east, then I'm in the dark. Buddhism is less than religion and more philosophy, so I think it doesn't either forbid or extoll polygamy. This kind of situational polygamy I understand, but it hasn't got much religious significance.
Polygamy IS practiced in the United States, both by religious 'fundamentalists', and private citizens. Do some websearchin, you'll find considerable about it. 8) The attraction of multiple sexual partners, increased income, and reduced overhead is...attractive. LOL
tanstaafl
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfhawk:
Kayt, I'm unaware of any culture today that practices polygamy in the fashions you describe.
Let me clarify,
Quote:
Originally posted by Kaythryn:
Generally, polygamy isn’t being practiced as the rich sheiks do or have done. Women are not objects, but workers. A man who is married to many women may be considered richer than a man who is only married to one woman, but it is not solely because he “owns” more women. Most brides, and their families pay money to the groom, and his side of the family when they marry, instead of the other way around. And these wife’s will then work on a farm, or create products to sell, such as clothing, and support the family.
Polygyny (Many women married to one man) is found mostly in horticultural societies that have a high level of productivity. One such group of people that allow women to marry more than one man at a time, are the Tiwi of North Australia. There are many factors that allow polygyny to work in this group. For one ,the women tend to live longer than the men. Number two, their society says that all women have to be married, even infants. Until the women come to age, their marriage isn’t a sexual one, and they still live at home with their parents. Number three, the more women in the family, the more food gatherers, thus the better off the family is. Now, in this system the men do NOT control everything, and reap all of the rewards. For a woman, marrying a man who has many other wife’s has its advantages. From the moment an infant is “married” to a young man, or boy, that male begins doing work and providing food for her side of the family. Until her first pregnancy she is allowed social and sexual freedom, while still being cared for. And finally, as the years go by, the older she gets, the more control in the family she has.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kaythryn:
In other cultures where the form of polygamy they practice is where a woman can have many husbands, the reason fits their lifestyle. In one culture different men are gone different times of the year for months at a time hunting and trading. In this culture the women each take a few husbands. In the end, it works out that each husband is home in roughly equal intervals, and sometimes more than one husband is home at a time. This system works out for many reason, one is because there are fewer women in this culture compared to men. Having more husbands means each woman has a larger income, and everyone is taken care of. Men always have someone to come home to, and the women always have some one at home.
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfhawk:
If you're talkin India, or further east, then I'm in the dark.
This is probably why you don’t know of the groups I’m talking about. Polyandry (one woman married to more than one man) is found in parts of Tibet, and Nepal and among the Toda and Pahari Hindus of India. Polyandry may be an adaptation to a shortage of females possibly caused by female infanticide among the Toda and Tibetans. In these societies where men must be away for long periods of time, women are able to have more than one husband to take care of them at a time. In Tibet, polyandry appears to be related to the shortage of land. If several men marry one woman, this keeps down the number of children a man has to support. If brothers marry the same woman, land can then be kept within the family rather than fragmented over the generations. (When Brothers marrying the same woman it is called fraternal polyandry).
Quote:
Originally posted by Kaythryn:
Sometimes when a man plans to marry a woman she will ask that he also marries her sister, that way when they move far away, back to his home, she can have her sister along with her.
That is called sororal polygyny.
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfhawk:
And while I was exaggerating about 'pissed off', it's clear that, without some kind of monarchy/oligarchy to support it, institutional polygamy is doomed.
I agree. That is why I’m
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm thinkin there are two basic kinds of polygamy. One kind is an evolved social survival strategy, the other a less beneficial arrangement approaching slavery. Humanity is quite inventive that way. My ignorance is deep, but I know of no religion that requires polygamy, but many support/allow the social convention. LostAngel, as Kayt has pointed out so astutely, almost any style of polyliving is out there somewhere. I hope we've helped answer your question.
If you're wondering why isn't polygamy more predominant, well...
Men are stupid, that's why 8)
tanstaafl
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
