A Request for Elise
Many years ago, we had a discussion about polygamy here that produced a novel argument from Elise about why it was incompatible with our legal system. AVI is having a discussion now, and I wanted to see if you -- Elise -- could recall how your argument went. I saw a court in New York recently recognized a plural marriage as being 'equally valid,' and as I recall your argument was one about the legal rather than the moral tradition. I want to say it had something to do with how benefits are assigned, but I can't quite remember.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
I have a whole series on this issue, collected on my old blog under the category “Grim Polygamy”. You can see the whole series here:
https://firebrandblog.blogspot.com/search/label/Grim%20Polygamy
The specific post where I decide polygamy raises insurmountable difficulties with regard to legal issues (who signs for a car loan, e.g.) and government benefits (Social Security) is here (with a side-trip into chain/group/circle marriages) :
https://firebrandblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/polygamy-3-each-wife-had-seven-sacks.html
The first part of the post is about why I think legalizing polygamy is inevitable; the second part is where I end up convinced it’s impossible.
These posts date back almost exactly 11 years. I don’t know that I’d come to the same conclusion today.
On re-reading my specific post this morning (when I'm awake) I think the position I would no longer stay by is summed up in this paragraph:
Now throw in chain marriage and circle marriage. How on earth could we write laws and design government benefits for those? And even if we could manage it for those - I shudder to think what the “buying a car” example would look like - once we accept gay marriage and can thus end up with true group marriages, I think the necessary changes would be simply too much for society to be willing to take on.
This assumes that polygamy-type changes to marriage would have to be acceptable to society broadly. That is no longer a valid assumption. If polygamy-type marriages become The Next Big Thing, they will be legalized regardless of how uncomfortable most people are with them.
In my original post, I wrote of polygamy-type changes following the trajectory of gay marriage. These days, the trajectory of imposing transgender "rights" has to be added in as a model. If The Powers That Be are willing - indeed eager - to rework something as basic as the concept of man and woman, reworking marriage to include polygamy and its logical extensions is nothing.
I'm very glad your blog is still running, Grim, and very glad you're still writing. But, ye gods and little fishes, I miss Cassandra very much sometimes.
"But, ye gods and little fishes, I miss Cassandra very much sometimes."
Yes, so do we all.
I re-read your series this morning. I think you were right about a lot of it, and have accurately predicted the path even though you were doubtful it would happen. Extra-legal "polyamory" is now very popular in tech cities like San Francisco and NYC, and we're starting to see the legal inroads follow suit a la the gay marriage shift.
Which is to say that the 'slippery slope' argument was right again, as it usually is. People forget that the slippery slope fallacy only proves that the slippery slope does not logically guarantee a continuation along the path; it does not prove that such a continuation is not possible, likely, or even the most likely thing. Especially given the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, once the logic of an argument has been accepted it is very easy for apparently parallel claims to win out in court.
On the other hand, I see that I thought at the time that polygamy was less radical than gay marriage, given that much of human history has already known it and it is structurally 'about' the natural parent / natural children / raising-the-children relationship (rather than being 'about' adult partners caring for each other). In that sense, then, we aren't going down the slope; the courts endorsed the bottom of the slope, and we're now kind of working back up it to included consequences.
But if you considered gay marriage to be better than polygamy -- and it has definitely gone better than I expected -- then this is a clear negative consequence of endorsing gay marriage. You do end up with a lot of extra baggage, whether you thought of those things as 'lesser included consequences' or 'further down the slope.'
Thank you, by the way, for digging that up at my request. I see that I had almost but not quite remembered your point: it wasn't about the assignment of benefits exactly, but about the division of property in case of divorce given the complexity of the relationships involved.
To a certain degree transgenderism poses a similar problem to the US military. Given the entrenched standard that physical fitness test performance is very relevant to promotions, and that men and women are judged on very different performance standards in order to give women a 'fair shot' at promotion, transgenderism poses a huge pragmatic problem. Even if you're ok with it in principle, in practice there are major negative morale costs to allowing low-performing males to opt into the female standard, and suddenly be promoted above their higher-performing male comrades. You end up with an NCO corps with lots of members who are despised by their underlings for having cheated the system (and probably also for forcing those underlings to play along with the obvious falsehood of using female honorifics and pronouns to address the guy they used to know as, e.g., "Bradley Manning").
But, to your point:
"If The Powers That Be are willing - indeed eager - to rework something as basic as the concept of man and woman..."
Thus, in spite of the blockbuster pragmatic problems, the military is doing it anyway.
You're welcome, Grim. It was fun to go back and re-read it. I've been missing blogging lately (really, missing writing and blogging was my preferred way to write). Perhaps this will get me back into it.
Thus, in spite of the blockbuster pragmatic problems, the military is doing it anyway.
It is interesting and more than a little scary how people walk themselves into idiotic behaviors one small step at a time. Sometimes I think most of us have inoperable Reverse gears - or perhaps just inoperable Emergency Brakes.
Interesting, I haven't read those posts and will do so once I have some free time. That said, I've known 5 poly 'marriages' of varied flavors over the last 15 years. All 5 crashed and burned. The reasons boiled down to hurt feelings, accusations of deceit, and a lack of brutal truthfulness on all parties. I've heard the defense that, "these are reasons for any marriage to fail", sure... but 2 points of failure are much more easily dealt with then 3+.
Even if you're ok with it in principle, in practice there are major negative morale costs to allowing low-performing males to opt into the female standard, and suddenly be promoted above their higher-performing male comrades.
heh, I won a board in order to pin on my blood stripes... I held myself a much higher creature than those TIS/TIG animals. I cannot imagine the disdain I'd have in this case. Then again, I was just a grunt... so there's that. ;)
Congratulations. (For readers who don't know the acronym, that's "Time in Service" / "Time in Grade.")
"...but 2 points of failure are much more easily dealt with then 3+."
Yeah, I don't know of any that have worked out either. Marriages only work out about half the time these days (the rest of the time they end in death... hmm...). But it does seem like adding complications to a rickety institution isn't likely to improve the outcomes.
Still, I'm not especially against it. Compared to a lot of this other stuff, polygamy doesn't seem so outlandish at all.
Still, I'm not especially against it. Compared to a lot of this other stuff, polygamy doesn't seem so outlandish at all.
I get it; the wife and I just celebrated 21 years. I don't really take an issue with it either, my attitude usually runs to that line, "Welcome to the party, pal!(s)"
Once you unmoor marriage from procreation, even if some marriages only provide philosophical support for procreation rather than physical, it becomes nothing more than a lifestyle choice.
Still, I'm not especially against it. Compared to a lot of this other stuff, polygamy doesn't seem so outlandish at all.
I am against it. In my post where I run through Cassandra's 10 points I am:
explaining why I think they are more about women’s rights, hiding polygamy, and culture than they are about inevitable consequences of polygamy itself; and explaining how I think society can avoid these undesirable circumstances even if it chooses to legalize polygamy.
Unfortunately, the past 11 years have made it clear that women come further down on the list than The Next Big Thing or Things. Many of ways I believed we could address Cassandra's points rely on robust protections for women and a preference for, oh, let's call it American Judeo-Christian culture. I don't think we can rely on either of those. At this point, I think Cassandra was (as usual) correct.
"...the past 11 years have made it clear that women come further down on the list than The Next Big Thing or Things. Many of ways I believed we could address Cassandra's points rely on robust protections for women..."
I would say that it is definitely true that women are getting the short end of the stick in all of these social changes. We most often talk about women's sports and trans* competitors, but take a look at this statistic:
https://medalerthelp.org/blog/lgbt-statistics/
Same-sex married couples had a median income of $107,210 in 2019. (NBC News) Gay marriage vs. straight marriage statistics showed this to be higher than opposite-sex married couples ($96,932). In addition, male couples ($123,646) earned more than female couples ($87,690).
Gay marriage is working out great for the guys, apparently. They're pulling in a median income that's almost a third higher than straight married couples. It's a tough road for the lesbians, though.
One could talk about why that is -- lifestyle choices, valuing time with children more than income, all the usual discussions -- but in terms of polygamy it suggests that adding more women to a marriage is going to harm its economic prospects. Adding another dude might be the ticket to prosperity, but another woman is going to drag your marriage down economically speaking. (It might be worth doing for reasons of love, etc.; marriage of any kind isn't meant to be only an economic consideration.)
On the same topic, the next statistic down: lesbian marriages fail at least at twice the rate of gay ones. (30% vs 15% in Holland; lesbians are 75% of failed gay marriages in the UK).
That could be a direct result of the economic issues, or they could simply be an input into the failure rate.
I get it; the wife and I just celebrated 21 years
Congratulations, again. We hit 23 in June ourselves.
Thanks, and congratulations to y'all as well!
Yup, Transgenderism trumps women. So do:
- Abortion: Sexual predators are A-OK as long as they support abortion (Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, etc.) This is actually pretty funny. Of course sexual predators support abortion. I mean, duh.
- Guns Are Bad: The fix for assaults on women is to teach men not to rape (or hit or whatever) rather than to allow women access to a way to defend themselves.
- Defund The Police: If protecting women from assault requires more policing, then women will simply have to put up with assault for the good of others. (See University of Pittsburgh for a recent specific example but I would think this would apply anywhere policing is reduced.)
- Muslims: If women are treated like chattel, that’s too bad but not bad enough to warrant serious criticism much less any type of sanctions.
So if Polygamy becomes The Next Big Thing, I’m sure that will trump women also.
So if Polygamy becomes The Next Big Thing, I’m sure that will trump women also.
Well, of course. A woman's place is in the home--the kitchen and bedroom. And the more, the marrier/merrier.
Just like the Free Love movement of the early '70s was just a mechanism for disguising rape.
Eric Hines
A woman's place is in the home--the kitchen and bedroom.
I suspect that in many cases the wives will be expected to bring in salaries as well. That's the counterpoint to Grim's concern that adding wives will reduce economic prospects. If a husband and, say, 3 wives are working outside the home while a 4th wife is a full-time mother/homemaker, the economic prospects might improve.
Just like the Free Love movement of the early '70s was just a mechanism for disguising rape.
I wouldn't go that far but it does seem to have worked out not so great for women. I'd argue it hasn't worked out too well for men, either, but in less obvious ways.
I wouldn't go that far....
A too common refrain from too many "men:" What's the matter with you, girl--ain't you liberated?" It wasn't just a con job/pickup line in the bar. Rape didn't always ensue, but too often it did, from the shaming and bullying. Rape isn't always at knife point.
Rape--then and now--doesn't actually work out too well for men, either, and not only legally.
Eric Hines
...Grim's concern that adding wives will reduce economic prospects...
I wouldn't go so far as to say that I'm concerned about it. :)
Your point is well taken, though. We clearly have transited to a society in which both parties are expected to work and earn money. Having a full-time stay-at-home spouse is an expense that a two-parent family will find hard to float; whereas a third partner could perhaps be supported by the two incomes. I'd say that's plausible given my experience, not in a plural marriage, but as a father whose marriage supported a son. He wasn't bringing in any money, but he was eating -- quite a lot as a teenager -- and we managed it. One of my cousins has five children and somehow manages to feed them.
It does seem like a male/male union has partners who are pulling in around $60K each, whereas a female/female one it's under $45k. If the straight male is also pulling in $60k, his wife -- who may be dividing her time with homemaking/childrearing -- would only need to bring in $36K to make the median. If she married a woman who was pulling in $45k, she'd have to scramble to bring her income up to get to the lesbian median. On the other hand, childrearing might not be such a big deal in a marriage with no prospect of natural increase.
And if a male/female union were to add a second male, suddenly they'd be doing even better than the gay couple down the street. Of course this begins to look less like a "marriage" and more like a joint-stock company whose purpose is making money rather than raising children.
Rape isn't always at knife point.
Agreed but I have reservations about using the term "rape" for a situation where the woman could have walked away. I understand the impact of shaming and bullying but this goes back to something I wrote on when I was blogging: we need to teach our daughters (literal and metaphorical) to say, "No". When it comes to sex, that used to be a basic rule mothers taught their daughters: A guy who wants sex will say anything but you don't have to give in to his arguments, pressure, or promises.
Rape--then and now--doesn't actually work out too well for men, either, and not only legally.
I meant that the era of free love didn't work out well for men.
childrearing might not be such a big deal in a marriage with no prospect of natural increase.
I'd love to see the gay/straight/lesbian income levels controlled for family size. My guess is that gay couples are less likely to have children than lesbian couples simply because it is much easier logistically for the lesbian couple to have children. I'm not sure how that would explain the straight couple income unless perhaps in a lesbian marriage both parents want more time with kids while in a straight marriage the woman might do more child/home stuff, leaving the man free to focus more on work?
It's interesting that if you take the 1/2 gay income ($60,000) plus the 1/2 lesbian income ($44,000), you get $104,000 - significantly higher than the straight income of $96,932. I think more data is needed to figure out exactly what all this means.
As for the difference in divorce rates, it may be pertinent that the case the judge was dealing with in your original post was one where a married gay couple had split up, one spouse moved out of the residence, and the remaining spouse moved someone else in apparently permanently - without bothering with divorce and re-marriage. If lesbian couples are more likely than gay couples to have children, a formal divorce might be more important.
I tried to find that and couldn't, but I did find this:
https://statusofwomendata.org/explore-the-data/poverty-opportunity/additional-state-data/median-household-income-by-household-type/
In general, it looks like married couples make more money if they have children -- probably because of the need to feed them. Male-headed households (i.e. unmarried men) also make more money if they have children as a rule; but it looks like female-headed households make less money if they have children.
That's a general rule. California is an exception, where having children doesn't increase the income of married or male-headed families, though female-headed households still make a lot more if they have no children.
D.C. is also an exception: female-headed households with children have only about half as much money as if they are without, but male-headed households are also much better off. Etc.
Generally, for the most part, that rule seems to hold. Sometimes it's close; sometimes it's a big swing. But as a rule married families with children make the most, having two incomes and a need to pay for feeding the little ones. Single heads of household do better if they have children if they're led by a male, and less well if led by a female.
As I thought about it, the discrepancy between gay and lesbian couples isn't that odd. We know that women make 77% of what men make. Yes, that difference pretty much disappears if we control for education, type of job, hours worked, so the difference reflects different choices rather than discrimination. But lesbian spouses and single mothers are just as likely as straight female spouses and women without children to make those choices. So we would expect their raw income to reflect that discrepancy.
Interesting that the lesbian couple income of $87,690 is (if I've done my math right) about 71% of the gay couple income of $123,646.
Single heads of household do better if they have children if they're led by a male, and less well if led by a female.
That's ... weird. I can come up with various explanations - sample size of male-headed households may be small; single fathers get more help from female relatives so their careers are less affected; only men with good incomes would attempt to raise children alone; low income for single mothers reflects those on welfare - but it's still weird.
...women make 77% of what men make. Yes, that difference pretty much disappears if...
We're tracking. I figure women make the choices they make (on average, of course, with individual exceptions), so it just makes sense that a household of just women will make less than a household of just men. Add another man if the reasons for adding people are economic, because the man will (on average, again) make the other choices.
That's ... weird.
I didn't think it was. Fathers who love their children often show it by trying to earn enough money to give the kids a better life. Fathers who don't have children to love aren't motivated to sweat the extra hours; they could do fine on a little less if it's just them. All they need money for is food for themselves, a very modest housing, and a motorcycle. Beer, obviously. Nobody depends on them but them, and male needs can be quite spartan.
But if he's got a daughter he loves, well, he's going to need to pull that extra shift when he can get it.
we need to teach our daughters (literal and metaphorical) to say, "No". When it comes to sex, that used to be a basic rule mothers taught their daughters....
Yes, but that's not enough. We need--and as far as I could tell, our parents did not--to teach our daughters how to say, "No," how to answer and defeat the shaming and bullying, how to enforce her "No." And we need to teach our sons, both literal and metaphorical, to respect the girl's "No" the first time she says it. And how to say, "No," when she's the pursuer. Again, as far as I can tell, that instruction only very rarely ever occurred.
Eric Hines
Eric,
I can’t speak to what sons were or were not taught - I never was one and I don’t have any. With regard to daughters, up to the 70s, daughters were taught to say No and to stick with it. Part of the problem is that the “why” for saying No was that girls who said Yes were regarded as sluts and girls who said Yes might get pregnant which would really mean they were regarded as sluts. Once the societal judgment of slut-ness was no longer powerful and pregnancy could be avoided, the instruction to say No was kind of hanging out there with no rationale. There was no attempt to figure out why saying No and sticking to it might still be a good thing; the assumption was that casual sex and lots of it was a good thing for women and for men.
I see some attempts to formulate coherent reasons for saying No and sticking with it but they tend to rely on the idea that sex often means different things or has different weight for women than for men. It’s not that that idea is wrong - it’s just that it makes feminists very nervous so saying No gets pushback from the very people I would think would support doing so. (As for who else doesn’t like the idea of saying No, please insert rant about the patriarchy always winning here.)
The piece Grim linked a while back represents an attempt to develop a No stance:
https://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/2022/08/chivalry-is-actually-good-thing.html
And National Review has a, well, review of the book by the author of the above-linked piece:
https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2022/10/03/the-cost-of-cheap-sex/
But if he's got a daughter he loves, well, he's going to need to pull that extra shift when he can get it.
Ah, nice, Grim - perfect. :+)
Elise,
What I'm getting at is that it's not enough to tell a daughter to say No and to be stubborn about it (which is all the don't be slutty rationale amounts to). The daughter needs to be taught, also, coping mechanisms for enforcing her No--and that does not need to include explaining her No to the boy. No should be enough. Courtesy suggests an explanation would be nice and sufficient--but only with a boy who was taught to respect the girl to begin with. For the others, the daughter needs to be taught sterner mechanisms, including physical. It's not lady-like to be a slut, the only rationale taught, but it's not at all unladylike for a girl to defend herself, physically at need, against an unruly "suitor."
I was a son in those days. I had an older brother--11 years older--who insisted I ought go for it--persistence pays off. I had a mother who told adolescent me that I had to stop playing tackle football with my next door neighbor girl, also adolescent, because repeatedly tackling her could cause her budding breasts to get cancer. My mother couldn't form a coherent argument on the matter; the subject was too embarrassing to her. On the other hand, when I was in high school, that same mother, hearing I was taking a girl to the local drive-in for a movie, told me to drive our larger car--it had a roomier back seat. My father was a WWII Navy vet and a strong silent type, who said very little at all on the matter. And he was embarrassed when my mother had to explain her suggestion to him. The details of my environment were atypical, but the level of instruction was not.
More from the Free Love "revolution" of those '70s: broader, but along the same line, was the mantra "If it feels good, do it." For whom it feels good never entered into it.
That was then, but that selfishness (not just self-centeredness) still is widespread, maybe more so. It's time we all learned the lessons of those failures and teach our now granddaughters and grandsons better--real, effective coping mechanisms to the one, and basic respect to the other. More proximately, it's time we taught both sexes the differences among f*king, having sex, and making love. That's never been addressed that I can see, ever in our history.
Such instruction is the stuff of real feminism, and it's applicable to both sexes.
Eric Hines
"...coping mechanisms..."
Heh. There's no need for euphemisms here.
No, but "coping mechanism" is a term of art from some of my training. It encompasses a broad range of solutions.
Eric Hines
Indeed it does.
that does not need to include explaining her No to the boy
The person who needs things explained is not the boy but the girl. When mothers said, "Say No so you're not a slut/don't get pregnant" and the slut label and fear of pregnancy disappeared, a girl was left with no explanation for herself about why to say No. "If it feels good do it" is a powerful message when it comes to sex. Once the old counterweights failed, new ones were needed. The "matricide" that Louise Perry talks about is part of why new counterweights were not found. So was the general embarrassment you talk about. It was hard for parents to talk honestly about their own sexual history and what they wish they'd done differently and/or regretted.
Post a Comment