Could I share my husband with another woman? No, I can't even share my chocolate. Does that mean other women shouldn't have the choice to share their husband if they want to? I think they should have that choice. So, I LOVE that 'Sister Wives' polygamist family is bringing this law suit...even if it is doomed to fail. The fact that they are not necessarily seeking recognition, simply an escape from legal prosecution, speaks volumes to the fact that all they want to do is be left alone and practice what they believe in. More power to them.
First things first. I am a member of the mainstream LDS church, which stopped participating in plural marriage in the 1890's; Mormons who are a part of the practice are excommunicated and/or are usually members of a fringe Mormon sect. I do not think the LDS church will bring polygamy back (now there's a Justin Timberlake song) nor is it a practice I personally believe in. It served its purpose in our history and is no longer practiced.
However, I do not understand why polygamy has been and continues to be labeled as such an evil practice. I am no expert, but I did minor in Anthropology at university and with that comes quite a bit of study of different marital practices in different cultures. In a non-Mormon context, polygamy is explained as a way for several women to be taken care of financially, socially, etc. by one man. It's not a condescending situation, it's practical. Historically, when people died young and at very high rates, women needed someone to help them as they raised their families, took care of their homes, and (rarely) worked to make a small income. Women in these situations participated in polygamy because it met their needs...not because they were sexual prey. In fact, because women in polygamous marriages did not have the constant presence of their husbands and everything that brought, one could argue these women were, in fact, more independent than their monogamous counterparts.
However, in every single anthropology class I took, whenever 'polygamy' and 'Mormons' were mentioned in the same sentence, there were dismissive laughs and giggles. These were slightly offensive since it was obvious people were ignorant about the Church's current position on polygamy, but I also never understood the double standard. How was polygamy perfectly acceptable historically and currently in foreign cultures/religions, but not for Mormons? True, our Norther-European, Puritan heritage explains why people worked fervently against Utah statehood for many years because of polygamy. But in this academic setting of supposed higher learning, open-mindedness, and objectivity in the 21st Century, I expected a little more...consistency.
And now, in a country where 41% of children are born to unmarried mothers, how does it make sense to prosecute (and persecute) consenting adults who want to be married, but cannot because the government says they can't be married to more than one person? Would they prefer them to be unwed and supported by the government instead of by their spouse? I'd be interested to know how the state figures out what is a polygamous marriage and not just a few 'co-habitating, swingers'. I bet if they stated it that way on their census forms, then the people would just think 'Oh, that's just an alternative lifestyle. Whatever works for them.' But label it polygamy and you've got instant judgement...and criminality.
What's more, where there are so many vocal gay marriage proponents in this country, how does polygamy not make sense? It's just another kind of family, right? Gay rights proponents (and celebrities) should jump on this bandwagon.
Of course polygamous marriages should follow the same rules as monogamous marriage in our culture. Everyone getting married should be consenting adults; no 12 year old brides. Husbands (and wives) entering into a polygamous marriage have an obligation to support all their children; if they can't do it, then don't add another wife (or use birth control). Anyone should be allowed to the leave marriage as they see fit, especially if their is abuse, emotional neglect, etc. As long as these standards and others are being met, leave polygamists alone.
Instead of prosecuting these families who try to take care of each other and work together (at least the way the family on this show portrays it), I'd much rather see law enforcement going after baby daddies (including professional athletes) who have many children by different mothers and baby-mamas who have multiple children by different men and depend on the government for support.
I wish these 'Sister Wives' the best of luck in their legal endeavor, but am under no illusions it will do more than bring attention to their cause, which is what they want. I hope they succeed in informing the public, but I'm not about to start sharing my chocolate because of it.
I think that the main reason that polygamy isn't accepted by the majority of the population like gay marriage, are the same reasons it was accepted in the past. In the past women couldn't support a family if her husband died and unless she was well off this usually meant poverty. But this would only occasionally create a situation where a polygamous relationship would have been beneficial.
ReplyDeletePolygamy still exists in some parts of the world, and it usually coincides with a cultural value of women being second class citizens. Polygamy was and is primarily a form of conspicuous consumption by men. It is a way to show superiority to other men. It also reinforces (or was caused by, hard to tell) class structures. Only wealthy men could afford to have multiple wives meaning that there were some men that no matter what they did could not afford to start a family.
So I guess all I am saying is that women are no longer second class citizens and can work and support a family as long as they have access to child care. This is a good thing! It also may be a reason why more and more women are choosing or able to stay unmarried and have children. There is not as much as an incentive to get married as there used to be. Is this a side effect of the modern feminist movement? Who knows.
The reason polygamy wasn't accepted in the 1800s was probably because of some sort of religious puritanism. Today it is probably a strange alliance between conservative Christians and feminists.
The reality is that child rearing falls on women, whether it's now or in the past. Circumstances, beliefs, personal desire, etc. combined with this fact mean many women cannot work outside the home and raise their children at the same time. And the child care issue is not as simple as it sounds. Why isn't polygamy a legitimate social solution to this? It seems like a better situation than a bunch of fatherless children running around who very often grow up to cause trouble. And I bet there are polygamous wives who do work, but they aren't allowed to describe themselves as polygamous wives for fear of prosecution.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, the women actually participating in the polygamy nowadays do not see themselves as second-class citizens (nor should other people); they see themselves as participating in a religious practice of their choice. Which is why this family are bringing this law suit; they are trying to help people understand their lifestyle.
So you are suggesting polygamy over single motherhood? Women are completely capable of managing a household on their own. As an educated woman, if you feel you cannot do so.. well, that is just sad. Additionally, child rearing does not have to fall to women; however, many American men perceive this as the case. In other parts of the world, gender roles are much more equal and men share in child rearing as much as women these days. It seems like you wish for a society of the past rather than the society that we can hope to head towards. Scandinavian countries have this figured out; we should take our cue from them.
ReplyDeleteI'm not suggesting polygamy over single-motherhood (and I know that women are completely capable of managing a household and raising children on their own...I also know it is much harder. Women who can do it are simply amazing and strong).
ReplyDeleteI'm saying that people should have the choice. I'm saying that maybe polygamy would be a better option for some families. I think it's hypocritical to say "You can co-habitat and have a few baby-mamas, but you absolutely cannot share a husband who supports you, loves you, and loves your children." Just doesn't seem to make sense.
In a society that claims to be accepting of alternate lifestyles, I just find it ironic that the one mostly used by conservative religions (including Islam and some Eastern religion), is not even an option.