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.

Anyway, please ignore my comments above.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.