Clarification: Polygyny rather than polygamy is the term and the practice
There is a current scandal involving the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a group that is often said to practice “polygamy†as are other, often unrelated, groups in which a man may be married to more than one woman.
I think this whole question is confused by the use of the word “polygamy” which means “many marriages.” What we are usually discussing is the practice of “polygyny” or “many wives.” These are not usually situations in which the women have multiple husbands either throughout the world or among the minority of simultaneous multiple marriage situations in the United States.
The reason polygyny is so much more common than either polyandry or group marriage is not, as some observers might surmise, because of a patriarchal conspiracy to privilege men and oppress women. It is because a woman always knows when she becomes a mother because she carries and gives birth but paternity is very easily confused. Polyandry and group marriage usually means paternity is uncertain and there is a strong desire in many if not most societies to try to tie biological fathers to their offspring. Thus, special circumstances, such as a need to consolidate resources or frequent male absence from the home base, are necessary for polyandry to naturally evolve as a custom.
Another reason polygyny evolves in many cultures may be because so many men are killed in warfare and the “extra” women are seen as requiring the protection of marriage and it is believed that being married to a man with other wives is preferable to remaining single.
Warren Farrell has speculated that polygyny evolved in part as a kind of socialism for women, giving more women access to the resources of wealthy men — while at the same time giving wealthy men multiple sexual and reproductive access.
While polygyny did not evolve to oppress women, it has the effect of often leading to many restrictions on them since strict monogamy is demanded of women and such cultures often have a very large population of bachelors. Thus, it is no accident that cultures in which polygyny is common are usually those that place the strongest limitations on women’s freedom of movement and mandate strict sex segregation.
Now, the situation with America’s polygynous minority is quite distinct from that of most cultures in which polygyny is accepted. These polygynous religious groups have made it a religious REQUIREMENT which is something that profoundly changes the whole equation. Humans are a species in which the numbers of males and females are naturally roughly equal although this equality can be severely imbalanced through several means — war can mean a shortage of men, female infanticide or aborting mostly female fetuses can imbalance it in the other direction.
However, the belief that a man MUST have plural wives has strong consequences for these groups. The often forgotten victims of that belief are young men. In order to sustain a situation of many more females than males, they often kick young males out of the group. Having been raised in an unusual environment, these “Lost Boys” have many problems adjusting to the greater world. They are often homeless and may become drunks or drug addicts.
Indeed, one of the paradoxes of America’s polygynous groups is that they are thought of as being peculiarly oppressive to females yet they allow young females to get by with behaviors that get young males expelled. A teen girl caught drinking, smoking pot, flirting or whatever will have someone scold and wag a finger in her face. The same infractions for a boy might get him summarily booted out.
The current trend in America is to be tolerant and accepting of just about every way of life. There are paradoxes to this acceptance when it leads to the possible acceptance of polygyny. People who pride themselves on their tolerance also tend to be strong proponents of equality among peoples. Polygyny tends to lead to greater INequality both between men and women and within the male gender.
| More from Denise Noe
Stumble It!
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:11 am
Why do women do this?
Because they prefer a 10% share of a superior husband to either a 100% share of an inferior husband, or none at all.
Is that legal?
Not here, but it is, and has been, in other cultures – it’s not a moral question at all.
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:43 am
I wonder how many of those poor kids are going to get raped in foster care.
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:58 am
If you talk to an anthropologist, “polygamy” means multiple “husbands” and multiple “wives”. Think slow motion orgy. It’s the default breeding strategy for chimpanzees and bonobos.
However, because polygamy gets used incorrectly (e.g., by so many thoroughly-ignorant journalists), evolutionary psychologists shun the word and use polygynandry instead. If you mention this word to an anthropologist, he or she probably won’t know what your talking about.
As Denise pointed out, polygyny means that, very often, for every man who has two wives, there is a man with none. One way for the deprived male to respond is by killing the polygynous male and taking his wives. Therefore, polygynous societies and species tend to have higher rates of male-male violence. One hypothesis has it that monogomy evolved as an agreement among men in an effort to reduce male-male violence.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Denise,
Only a feminist would recite the “patriarchal conspiracy” drivel. Women know who their kids are. That men want to know is not a conspiracy. That men want something more than a child support order is quite normal and reasonable.
The FLDS polygamist women are not forced into it. It is not the patriarchal conspiracy feminists such as yourself portray it to be.
Many of them moved there from the “outer world” because they like the idea of a stable community comprised of women who share their responsibilities and can take time for themselves. In case you hadn’t noticed from the interviews of these women — they run the place in many respects. They don’t have to ‘put out’ to please the husband — there are other wives to share that. They decide when sons and daughters are emotionally mature enough for marriage. They base it on maturity, not chronological age. It appears that the women are primarily responsible for picking who their children will marry. These women have a lot more social power, as a team, than women who are essentiallly on their own in the outer world. Certainly, not a lot of women do this — but there is no question that these women much prefer polygamy.
Polyandry absent marriage is now the norm in the animal kingdom of the welfare state. Polyandry means “(among female animals) the habit or system of having two or more mates, either simultaneously or successively”.
40% of children are born outside marriage by women who have children with various men to get government entitlements. America is more a system of entitled polyandry than anything else.
Entitled polyandry is not a patriarchal conspiracy. It is the feminist manifesto realized.
You can go outside and play now with some other feminist friends. Your reality check is completed.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:28 am
We live in times of rapid change which includes aspects of life that were previously ’set’ by biology. While it is always prudent to know and understand matters from an historical perspective, there is no excuse for carrying forward biological limitations which we are now able to overcome with ease and little or no social disruption.
Paternity certainty is one of those limitations that we had no option but to put up with. It is not the case or the need any more. No man need or should be ignorant of his children. No child should be prevented from knowing its father. ‘Mother’s baby, Father’s maybe’ is an old rubric that ought now be relegated to the old books alongside references to leeching and air in the veins.
Out of the window can go many of the excuses for ‘keeping women secluded’. If they want to be – and the arguement forwarded that polygamous groups are woman-run ans well as woman-dominated is a cogent one – then let women be responsible for their choice instead of continuing to lay blame on men’s shoulders.
Personally I think that any man who seeks to have (and support, provide for etc) three wives needs a mental heath professional.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:35 am
David R. Usher said,
Denise,
Only a feminist would recite the “patriarchal conspiracy” drivel. Women know who their kids are. That men want to know is not a conspiracy. That men want something more than a child support order is quite normal and reasonable.>>
(Denise) You’re saying that men wanting to know who their biological children as “is not a conspiracy.” So said I. “Patriarchal conspiracy” was mentioned as an idea that I reject.
David R. Usher: The FLDS polygamist women are not forced into it. It is not the patriarchal conspiracy feminists such as yourself portray it to be.>>
(Denise) I specifically rejected the “patriarchal conspiracy” hypothesis as the reason polygyny is so much more common that its reverse.
David R. Usher: Many of them moved there from the “outer world” because they like the idea of a stable community comprised of women who share their responsibilities and can take time for themselves. In case you hadn’t noticed from the interviews of these women — they run the place in many respects. They don’t have to ‘put out’ to please the husband — there are other wives to share that.>>
(Denise) The late Alexander Joseph was not an FLDS member but he was a very well-known polygynist. One of his wives, Judy Joseph (she and he later split up), remarked on this as an advantage. She said, “The fact is, I don’t need sex every night. If I had to meet Alex’s sexual desire, or that of any man, I would feel very much enslaved.”
David R. Usher: They decide when sons and daughters are emotionally mature enough for marriage. They base it on maturity, not chronological age. It appears that the women are primarily responsible for picking who their children will marry. These women have a lot more social power, as a team, than women who are essentiallly on their own in the outer world. Certainly, not a lot of women do this — but there is no question that these women much prefer polygamy.>>
(Denise) Again, it is properly described as polygyny. My essay nowhere disputes that some women prefer this system.
David R. Usher: Polyandry absent marriage is now the norm in the animal kingdom of the welfare state. Polyandry means “(among female animals) the habit or system of having two or more mates, either simultaneously or successively”.
40% of children are born outside marriage by women who have children with various men to get government entitlements. America is more a system of entitled polyandry than anything else.>>
(Denise) We don’t have polyandry. Like polygyny, polyandry is a form of MARRIAGE with the stability that marriage implies. Like most cultures, modern America lacks the special circumstances that lead polyandry to evolve such as the need to consolidate resources or frequent male access from the home base.
David R Usher: Entitled polyandry is not a patriarchal conspiracy. It is the feminist manifesto realized.>>
(Denise) What we are seeing is a lessening of the importance of marriage per se. That is a definite problem.
David R. Usher: You can go outside and play now with some other feminist friends. Your reality check is completed.
(Denise) As I’ve said before, I am disabled and have trouble making friends. However, I don’t select friends based on their politics. It just so happens that most of my friends are men and that has always been true.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:48 am
By the way, Denise. That was a well constructed article. I don’t know why David is leaping on you for it. I don’t hear you giving any feminist creed in it.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Either I misread the piece, or it has been modified. I am not sure which. The way it is written now, the “patriarchal conspiracy” currently says “The reason polygyny is so much more common than either polyandry or group marriage is not, as some observers might surmise, because of a patriarchal conspiracy to privilege men and oppress women.”
Anyway, please ignore my comments above.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:58 am
David R. Usher said,
Either I misread the piece, or it has been modified. I am not sure which. The way it is written now, the “patriarchal conspiracy” currently says “The reason polygyny is so much more common than either polyandry or group marriage is not, as some observers might surmise, because of a patriarchal conspiracy to privilege men and oppress women.”
(Denise) I didn’t modify it. That was how I originally wrote it and expressed the point I wished to make.