Question for Americans on the Left

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What have they done to show their care? Any funds raised? Any senators or congressmen called over the issue? Any marches? I mean the usual stuff those on the left do when something concerns them

What are you doing about the opiate crisis? Backyard pool safety?

 

[Left Coast]

Your view is not yet sufficiently nuanced. And the scenario I presented was to help you see that power as it may seem to some eyes may not be power in other eyes.

You are failing to acknowledge that this man is not necessarily in an advantaged position in relation to his wife in his community. Yes his society offers him some opportunities that they deny his wife as a result of the assigned gender roles. But likewise some advantages are bestowed on his wife as a result of the gender roles. These gender roles were not created to with the intent to oppress either or women. Instead they were created as a result of the need to survive.

If you admit that economic opportunity is an essential component of freedom, then societies in which men have all or most of the economic opportunity, because they have the jobs, is a society in which men are freer. It's never a zero-sum game.

As their circumstances improve their opportunities will improve. And as those opportunities improve open so the gender roles will weaken in that society. That is the formula.

The causality is bidirectional. Greater societal prosperity helps women (and men) be more autonomous, and greater women's autonomy produces more societal prosperity. It's a positive feedback loop.

I will even go further. If some catastrophe befell the US so that some sort of mad max post apocalypse scenario occured. You would forfeit some of the rights and freedoms you now enjoy as you seek for survival.

Some of them, quite possibly, sure. That's a complete non sequitur to the wrongness of patriarchy, though. We have no evidence that patriarchy is a necessary social norm, and tons of counterfactuals demonstrating that humans not only survive, but thrive in egalitarian societies.

That's a fair list. An essential aspect is the last thing in your list. Where there are fewer economic opportunities everyone will have less money. Men will take the few opportunities and women will stay home and look after the kids. That's just how it is. Any attempt to configure it differently under those circumstances is a recipe for disaster.

Your evidence for that last sentence is...?

Your links prove my point. It is not the norm in any large culture or community. The norm is always monogamy.

That's not what either link says...?

Of course we have already agreed that the lower the class the more likely the women to choose polygamy or polyamorous relationships.

Glad we agree. The vast majority of women wouldn't choose polygamy if they had the choice. So what are we arguing about, exactly?

I deny nothing. I believe women have been just as instrumental to the advancement of human society 500 years ago as they are today. Without their contributions in the home the great men could never have achieved what they did.

The modern women's greater participation in the formal workplace has is costs.

Human cultural experimentation over thousands of years has shown us that humans live happier, freer, more prosperous lives when we respect and defend their personal autonomy to the greatest degree possible. That means defending women's social, political, and economic equality with men.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

seems a favourite argument of the left around drugs and sex work

And by itself would be a bad reason.

And no one is dying in my country from polygamy

Nobody died in the Warren Jeffs case either. There is more harm than just death. And you've already been given plenty of links where polygamy, especially polygyny has harmed women even in places where it's legal.

I highlighted the section bold for a reason. The government does even have to prove you're married to take you down.

You highlighted something that even at its worse wouldn't stop poly relationships, and it hasn't been enforced in over 100 years, even with perfect cases of abuse it could have been, what it was made for, taking down abusive cult behavior. Not a very strong argument. You have no victims here to wrangle sympathy pulls.

As for its enforcement, are polygamous people allowed to serve in juries?

Not only allowed but required to, just like me.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

@Thanda
Since you have skipped over my post, I will conclude you know of no cases where a family has been torn apart strictly because of bigamy laws. Therefore, one possible answer as to why there is no outcry is that people don't know of any cases either. Just that.

Thanks Koldo. I think you are correct. This whole thread rests on a bit of a misunderstanding. Children aren’t taken from their parents in the US simply because their parents are polygamists.

Please correct me if I am mistaken and please pardon my ignorance (this goes to anyone) if I am wrong here.

 

[Thanda]

If you admit that economic opportunity is an essential component of freedom, then societies in which men have all or most of the economic opportunity, because they have the jobs, is a society in which men are freer. It's never a zero-sum game.

To a point. But there are a few issues you're not taking into account.

Having money does make make you freer than someone who.doesn't have it - all things being equal. The problem lies in how you get that money. If money was falling from the sky into mens laps with no sacrifice or cost then yes, men would be definitely be at a clear advantage over women. The problem is that's not normally the case. In most cases the jobs these poor men get are not the kind women would be rushing to get. In my example (which is a common scenario around here) the man has to do backbreaking work in order to earn the pittance that supports his family. He is also denied quality time with his family because his place of work is hundreds of kilometres from home. He also works twelve hour days and his work not only compromises his health but also risks his life and longevity.

Now when money comes at such a cost, do you still consider this man more free than his wife just because he earns the money?

Furthermore marriage was created for the very purpose of making sure that the labors of men and women (as different as their contributions usually are) are tied together for the benefit of their families. The wife of a rich man is rich. The wife of a powerful man is powerful. Likewise the children. The problem comes when a society allows marriage to be viewed as just another relationship status which can be changed at a whim. That strips both men and women of the security that marriage was supposed to provide.

Suddenly a woman who was once rich through her husband and has borne him multiple children can have all that money stripped from her through divorce. Or a man who's worked years to support his family can have his children taken from him through divorce.

The causality is bidirectional. Greater societal prosperity helps women (and men) be more autonomous, and greater women's autonomy produces more societal prosperity. It's a positive feedback loop.

I can agree with that to a degree. But I will insist that the dominant influence is the societal prosperity in this loop.

Some of them, quite possibly, sure. That's a complete non sequitur to the wrongness of patriarchy, though. We have no evidence that patriarchy is a necessary social norm, and tons of counterfactuals demonstrating that humans not only survive, but thrive in egalitarian societies.

It is not a non-sequitor - something cannot be evil if it is necessary. Denying people their freedom of movement can't be evil if it necessary to keep society safe (imprisonment).

The fact is that the vast majority of the most dominant cultures/nations in the world all were (and are?) patriarchal. Every feminist in the world worth their salt will gladly tell you that patriarchal societies dominate(d) the world.

Now with that said, humans have been around, by scientists estimates, for hundred of thousands of years. Over that time the many human societies around the world had every opportunity to try every kind of social configuration they could think of. One way or another, from among those societies that survived by managing to secure the resorces their communities needed, patriarchal societies dominated.

So you can argue what you will but patriarchal have already proven to be successful because they managed to survive and take humans through the harshest and hardest conditions of our history. If patriarchal societies are no longer necessary in modern times they will die out just as whatever other social configurations others tried in the past died out.

Your evidence for that last sentence is...?

Take a look at any area where men have few work opportunities. The crime rate will go through the roof. That is a disaster.

Glad we agree. The vast majority of women wouldn't choose polygamy if they had the choice. So what are we arguing about, exactly?

I think maybe your understanding of the word choice seems to be different from mine. Are you referring to forced marriages? Because if you're not talking about forced marriages then you are talking about marriages that women choose. Which means they have a choice.

And it is a moot point that most women (and men) wouldn't choose polygamy. In fact most men and women never choose polygamy unless there is a huge shortage of men at that particular time.

Human cultural experimentation over thousands of years has shown us that humans live happier, freer, more prosperous lives when we respect and defend their personal autonomy to the greatest degree possible. That means defending women's social, political, and economic equality with men.

Firstly the degree to which it is possible to achieve full personal autonomy greatly depends on the circumstances. Once again the lower classes are always denied the autonomy of the higher classes. But also the general prosperity of the community and the degree to which they are living past the point of survival also has a great influence on this.

Also, there are two things you should not confuse with each other. Society and individuals. The needs of the society and the needs/wants of the individual only don't always intersect. When they do it is beautiful. But when they do not, the question arises - individual or society?
Gender roles were past society's answer to the issue of survival. But those roles restricted both men and women (I note the you continue to push the idea that it is more women who are disavantaged).

So one cannot blindly fight for more rights without any changes to the conditions that necessitated the restrictions in the first place.

 

[Thanda]

What are you doing about the opiate crisis? Backyard pool safety?

Nothing. I'm not American. What are you doing about it?

 

[Thanda]

Thanks, Thanda for raising this issue. I lean left and I do not think a consenting polygamous relationship between adults should be illegal - and certainly, families shouldn’t be torn apart for that.

If that is happening, you are right to ask why the US left isn’t concerned about it. Maybe we should be.

However - and I have to apologize for my ignorance here - is it in fact the case that the children of polygamous parents are taken from their moms and dads if they are discovered in the US? I don’t think that’s the case. I think it’s the case that children in a toxic environment, where young underage girls are married off and are in an abusive environment ... those children are taken out of those situations (if discovered) and some of those situations have occurred in the context of polygamous families. Absent that kind of abuse, I was not aware that children are taken away from parents in the US *simply* because their dad has multiple wives, and have done nothing else wrong. I find that hard to believe.

So I apologize again for my ignorance and if this has already been addressed, but I’m not sure the premise of your OP is quite accurate. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

My post, as I stated in the OP, was based on the fear expressed by one of the wives of Sister Wives of her family being separated as her grandfather's was. Now admittedly I don't know whether the grandfather's family was broken up purely because he practiced polygamy or because he was guilty of another crime.

It appears however from the many responses here and some of my own further investigations, that such separations are not common, at least not these days. But seemingly those who are in these relationships still don't feel fully comfortable being a part of the general society. I'm not sure what that fear is based on.

 

[Left Coast]

To a point. But there are a few issues you're not taking into account.

Having money does make make you freer than someone who.doesn't have it - all things being equal. The problem lies in how you get that money. If money was falling from the sky into mens laps with no sacrifice or cost then yes, men would be definitely be at a clear advantage over women. The problem is that's not normally the case. In most cases the jobs these poor men get are not the kind women would be rushing to get. In my example (which is a common scenario around here) the man has to do backbreaking work in order to earn the pittance that supports his family. He is also denied quality time with his family because his place of work is hundreds of kilometres from home. He also works twelve hour days and his work not only compromises his health but also risks his life and longevity.

Now when money comes at such a cost, do you still consider this man more free than his wife just because he earns the money?

If he has more rights, money, and less restrictive gender roles than his wife, then by the definition we agreed to - yes, he is literally freer than her. That doesn't mean his life doesn't still suck. I really don't know how much more we can retread the same ground.

Furthermore marriage was created for the very purpose of making sure that the labors of men and women (as different as their contributions usually are) are tied together for the benefit of their families. The wife of a rich man is rich. The wife of a powerful man is powerful. Likewise the children. The problem comes when a society allows marriage to be viewed as just another relationship status which can be changed at a whim. That strips both men and women of the security that marriage was supposed to provide.

That is quite the statement in bold there. In societies where women are essentially the property of men, no, having a rich husband does not make her personally rich, at all. And though she may enjoy the fruits of his wealth to a degree, her enjoyment is dependent on her continued relationship with him. Which again, restricts her freedom.

It is not a non-sequitor - something cannot be evil if it is necessary.

But it isn't necessary. We have many, many societies around the world today that demonstrate that patriarchy is not necessary.

The fact is that the vast majority of the most dominant cultures/nations in the world all were (and are?) patriarchal. Every feminist in the world worth their salt will gladly tell you that patriarchal societies dominate(d) the world.

Now with that said, humans have been around, by scientists estimates, for hundred of thousands of years. Over that time the many human societies around the world had every opportunity to try every kind of social configuration they could think of. One way or another, from among those societies that survived by managing to secure the resorces their communities needed, patriarchal societies dominated.

You're confusing what did happen with what must happen. I'm well aware most societies have been patriarchal. That doesn't mean such was a necessary arrangement.

So you can argue what you will but patriarchal have already proven to be successful because they managed to survive and take humans through the harshest and hardest conditions of our history. If patriarchal societies are no longer necessary in modern times they will die out just as whatever other social configurations others tried in the past died out.

Great, then as we're seeing, patriarchy is dying. So again, what are we arguing about?

Take a look at any area where men have few work opportunities. The crime rate will go through the roof. That is a disaster.

This doesn't demonstrate that in poorer places men must take all the jobs while the women stay home barefoot and pregnant. Be mildly creative.

I think maybe your understanding of the word choice seems to be different from mine. Are you referring to forced marriages? Because if you're not talking about forced marriages then you are talking about marriages that women choose. Which means they have a choice.

This gets into what "choice" means. It's not binary. If I say to you, well, you have a choice: marry me, and gain the benefits of my protection and wealth, even though you're not attracted to me and don't want to marry me; or else be poor, alone, and unemployed...hey, you have a "choice!" But let's be serious, that's not a genuine choice, it's a forced one. The point is that it appears in the large majority of cases that women "choosing" polygamous marriages around the world are doing so because of cultural, religious, family, and economic pressures. And no, those are very obviously not the same as the pressures of women in freer societies who can be successfully single or monogamous because their societies are structured to enable it. So for the 10th time, that's the left's issue with polygamy. I don't know how many other ways to explain it.

Firstly the degree to which it is possible to achieve full personal autonomy greatly depends on the circumstances. Once again the lower classes are always denied the autonomy of the higher classes. But also the general prosperity of the community and the degree to which they are living past the point of survival also has a great influence on this.

Also, there are two things you should not confuse with each other. Society and individuals. The needs of the society and the needs/wants of the individual only don't always intersect. When they do it is beautiful. But when they do not, the question arises - individual or society?
Gender roles were past society's answer to the issue of survival. But those roles restricted both men and women (I note the you continue to push the idea that it is more women who are disavantaged).

By the definition of freedom we agreed upon, women are objectively more disadvantaged on the whole, yes.

So one cannot blindly fight for more rights without any changes to the conditions that necessitated the restrictions in the first place.

I'm all for removing both socioeconomic and gender-based inequity. They're peas in a pod, as I keep explaining.

 

[Thanda]

If he has more rights, money, and less restrictive gender roles than his wife, then by the definition we agreed to - yes, he is literally freer than her. That doesn't mean his life doesn't still suck. I really don't know how much more we can retread the same ground.

Indeed but we have not yet established whether his has more rights, or whether his gender roles are less restrictive. Furthermore we haven't explored the responibilities that may be associated with his gender role.

And lastly you have not addressed the cost of the money he gets. This seems important factor you are intent on brushing aside.

That is quite the statement in bold there. In societies where women are essentially the property of men, no, having a rich husband does not make her personally rich, at all. And though she may enjoy the fruits of his wealth to a degree, her enjoyment is dependent on her continued relationship with him. Which again, restricts her freedom.

Firstly she doesn't need to be personally rich. A man with many children is no less blessed just because he isn't personally fertile. That's why men and women were created different. And that's also why they marry.

It also follows that just as she cannot enjoy the fruits of his wealth without having a relationship with him so to he cannot enjoy the fruits of her fertility and homemaking without a continued relationship with her - which restricts his freedom too.

But it isn't necessary. We have many, many societies around the world today that demonstrate that patriarchy is not necessary.

No amount of societies today can prove that patriarchal societies were not necessary in the past. Our present circumstances are vastly different from those faced by people of hundreds never mind thousands of years ago.

You're confusing what did happen with what must happen. I'm well aware most societies have been patriarchal. That doesn't mean such was a necessary arrangement.

You have no proof it was not necessary other than you own hope that it isn't.

Great, then as we're seeing, patriarchy is dying. So again, what are we arguing about?

Whether patriarchal societies are dying or not was never a topic of our discussion. So I'm not sure what the purpose of this statement is.

This doesn't demonstrate that in poorer places men must take all the jobs while the women stay home barefoot and pregnant. Be mildly creative.

Those men you leave without jobs will be menaces to society. Especially if they outnumber the men who have them.

This gets into what "choice" means. It's not binary. If I say to you, well, you have a choice: marry me, and gain the benefits of my protection and wealth, even though you're not attracted to me and don't want to marry me; or else be poor, alone, and unemployed...hey, you have a "choice!" But let's be serious, that's not a genuine choice, it's a forced one. The point is that it appears in the large majority of cases that women "choosing" polygamous marriages around the world are doing so because of cultural, religious, family, and economic pressures. And no, those are very obviously not the same as the pressures of women in freer societies who can be successfully single or monogamous because their societies are structured to enable it. So for the 10th time, that's the left's issue with polygamy. I don't know how many other ways to explain it.

No that is a valid choice. Just like it is a valid choice in most modern, free societies to either work for a living or die of hunger.

And in societies in which only women who do paid work are praised for their independence and "strength", it is very difficult for a woman decide she wants to stay home with her children to raise them and take care of the home and family. She faces huge stigma, and family and cultural pressures to fall in line with what everyone else is expected to do (and I have first hand knowledge of this).
So will you now say that in a place like the US where women are generally expected to work for their own living that they have a choice to stay home? Of course they do. It's not an easy one, but it's still there as a valid choice.

By the definition of freedom we agreed upon, women are objectively more disadvantaged on the whole, yes.

Not they're not. I have addressed this elsewhere.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nothing. I'm not American. What are you doing about it?

I'm not American either, but I'm probably not doing enough.

But it seems like you're asking for rallies and whatnot for your pet issue from people who haven't acted on countless other issues, including these two. Why? What makes yours more important?

 

[Left Coast]

Indeed but we have not yet established whether his has more rights, or whether his gender roles are less restrictive. Furthermore we haven't explored the responibilities that may be associated with his gender role.

And lastly you have not addressed the cost of the money he gets. This seems important factor you are intent on brushing aside.

I'm not intent on brushing aside anything. You're asking about a completely decontextualized example. Where in the world are we talking about? Currently or in times past?

Firstly she doesn't need to be personally rich. A man with many children is no less blessed just because he isn't personally fertile. That's why men and women were created different. And that's also why they marry.

It also follows that just as she cannot enjoy the fruits of his wealth without having a relationship with him so to he cannot enjoy the fruits of her fertility and homemaking without a continued relationship with her - which restricts his freedom too.

This is a ridiculous analogy, particularly in a patriarchal context. You don't need children to survive. You do, generally, need money.

No amount of societies today can prove that patriarchal societies were not necessary in the past. Our present circumstances are vastly different from those faced by people of hundreds never mind thousands of years ago.

This thread, I thought, was about modern polygamy today. So let's regroup here. Are you claiming that patriarchy is necessary for people's survival today? If not, then for purposes of this conversation I don't really care about the past.

You have no proof it was not necessary other than you own hope that it isn't.

It's not up to me to prove the negative. And again, I thought you wanted to talk about polygamy today?

Those men you leave without jobs will be menaces to society. Especially if they outnumber the men who have them.

As a man, I find that to be an insulting and reductive assumption about men. Where do you get these ideas?

No that is a valid choice. Just like it is a valid choice in most modern, free societies to either work for a living or die of hunger.

Oh give me a break. You think getting a job in a modern, free society is the equivalent of a woman getting married in a polygamous patriarchal society? You are desperate to equivocate, here as throughout this discussion.

And in societies in which only women who do paid work are praised for their independence and "strength", it is very difficult for a woman decide she wants to stay home with her children to raise them and take care of the home and family. She faces huge stigma, and family and cultural pressures to fall in line with what everyone else is expected to do (and I have first hand knowledge of this).
So will you now say that in a place like the US where women are generally expected to work for their own living that they have a choice to stay home? Of course they do. It's not an easy one, but it's still there as a valid choice.

The choice of a woman, who could choose to work, but chooses to stay home to be a mom is lightyears removed from the situation of a woman who literally cannot make the choice to work and must get married so that a man can financially support her. Why are you so desperate to equivocate about these circumstances?

Not they're not. I have addressed this elsewhere.

Then as here, you've been wrong elsewhere.

 

[Left Coast]

Forced Marriage In Burkina Faso: When Laws Are Not Enough

 

[Thanda]

I'm not intent on brushing aside anything. You're asking about a completely decontextualized example. Where in the world are we talking about? Currently or in times past?

I have already said a few times. Here in poor communities in South Africa. I've also said to you that it is a common occurrence today though it happened even more in the past.

But I don't believe you're interested in context because you have so far refused to acknowledge the difficult context in which he earns his income. It's suits your purposes to pretend he gets the money from thin air without cost.

This is a ridiculous analogy, particularly in a patriarchal context. You don't need children to survive. You do, generally, need money.

There is no proof that a woman divorced from her husband would fail to survive. Most of the time if she is unemployed she simply goes back to her family. This is without even taking into account maintenance the husband normally expected to pay or forced to by the courts.

Furthermore, to some people at least, their children are more important to them than their own survival. But I understand that not everyone can relate to that.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I've already demonstrated it in my own example. If you grow up in a culture where polygamy is normal (though not the norm, the norm is always monogamy unless there is a serious shortage of men) then some of the apprehensions that those who aren't use to it feel tend to disappear. So partly polygamy is about economic circumstance. But another part is about a cultural view of what marriage means.

In the west marriage is solely about people committing themselves because of their love for each other. When that love disappears (as it often does) so does the marriage.

However this take on marriage is relatively recent. For long marriage was, and still is in many societies today, a more practical matter.
The first purpose of any society is to ensure its long term survival. Having and raising children is a massive component in achieving that goal. So everyone in society was expected at some point to get married and go about the business of having and raising children.

But children do not eat love (romantic love). So women have always tended to seek for marriage those men who can give their children a better chance at survival. This is an evolutionary imperative. In those circumstances women would prefer to marry a man who can provide for them and their children even if it means they must share him. They would rather that then marrying a man who cannot provide simply because they love him - again, because children don't eat love. Thus allowing polygamy gives women more choice as they are not confined to choosing just those men that are left.

Where survival is not an issue everyone's options open up, including women. And so the more able to take care of her needs herself a women is the less likely she is to choose polygamy. But she is also less likely to choose a monogamous marriage too, for very similar reasons. And if she does choose either of those marriage types she is less likely to stay in any of them.

That's simply because marriage never was about love alone. It always had that practical component of interdependence between men and women. However the societies we are building today have a greater emphasis on individualism and "independence". And therefore that which ties men and women together is slowly being eroded until, as we see today, fewer and fewer people (men and women) are choosing marriage. They just don't see the point. And they are right. There largely is no point in marriage if all you care about is love.

If however you consider (as those of old times did and those of other cultures still do) that marriage is about being able to have and raise children in a stable environment then marriage still has a valid use.

Read your very first sentence. Think about it.

 

[Thanda]

This thread, I thought, was about modern polygamy today. So let's regroup here. Are you claiming that patriarchy is necessary for people's survival today? If not, then for purposes of this conversation I don't really care about the past.

It is necessary for some peoples survival today. I think the relevant links have already been provided by you or someone else to show this.

This is also true in some parts of South Africa.

It's not up to me to prove the negative. And again, I thought you wanted to talk about polygamy today?

Polygamy and patriarchal societies are not synonymous. There are many patriarchal societies where polygamy is banned (the US being an example).

As a man, I find that to be an insulting and reductive assumption about men. Where do you get these ideas?

Whether you find it insulting or not does not change the fact. Your question of where I get this well known fact is actually quite astounding. Do progressives only concern themselves with the challenges women face?

A Google search of "youth unemployment and crime" brings up so many results that only someone who has never cared to find out bout the adverse effects unemployment has on men would not know about this correlation.

However I'm not surprised as it is merely confirming the trend that I have noticed throughout our discussion that you are not all that interested in the hardships that men go through. In your mind any hardships men face pale in comparison with what women face and can safely be ignored unless (I imagine) those challenges directly affect women.



From a study done in France we get the following abstract:

In this paper we examine the influence of unemployment on property crimes and on violent
crimes in France for the period 1990 to 2000. This analysis is the first extensive study for this
country. We construct a regional-level data set (for the 95 départements of metropolitan
France) with measures of crimes as reported to the Ministry of Interior. To assess social
conditions prevailing in the département in that year, we construct measures of the
unemployment rate as well as other social, economic and demographic variables using
multiple waves of the French Labor Survey. We estimate a classic Becker type model in
which unemployment is a measure of how potential criminals fare in the legitimate job
market. First, our estimates show that in the cross-section dimension, crime and
unemployment are positively associated. Second, we find that increases in youth
unemployment induce increases in crime. Using the predicted industrial structure to
instrument unemployment, we show that this effect is causal for burglaries, thefts, and drug
offences. To combat crime, it appears thus that all strategies designed to combat youth
unemployment should be examined.

Oh give me a break. You think getting a job in a modern, free society is the equivalent of a woman getting married in a polygamous patriarchal society? You are desperate to equivocate, here as throughout this discussion.

Of course its equivalent. In fact it is very clearly equivalent since we have just agreed that in poorer societies in which men take the bulk of the few economic opportunities available, marriage is a woman's ticket to getting a share in whatever income is earned by a man. So literally her marriage is like her finding a job in the context of her society.

The choice of a woman, who could choose to work, but chooses to stay home to be a mom is lightyears removed from the situation of a woman who literally cannot make the choice to work and must get married so that a man can financially support her. Why are you so desperate to equivocate about these circumstances?

There are many women who cannot make the choice to not work too, no? I mean doesn't your country (and mine) have millions of single mothers? Is the single mother oppressed in your view because she has no choice but to work (in a similar way that a woman from a poor community cannot choose to work but must stay home?)

It is but two sides of the same coin. In some communities women may be discouraged from working and may even find it difficult to get jobs depending on that particular culture's view about a woman's role. And in another culture it may be very difficult for a woman who so wishes to stay home and look after her kids depending on that particular culture as well. I have met many men who are adamant that they want a woman to work. Working for a woman is no longer becoming a choice but an expectation and pressure is being brought to bear to ensure they comply.

Now you can decide whether you think those who pressure women to work are better than those who pressure them to stay home. But don't pretend that the societal pressures on both sides are any less.

As a side note, there has never been a law in my country that ever prevented a woman from working outside her home. But there were times where it was discouraged.

Forced Marriage In Burkina Faso: When Laws Are Not Enough

You'll have to explain to me what the purpose of this post is. Have we disagreed on the existence of forced marriages?

 

[Howard Is]

Also, polygamy and polyamory are not the same. People keep confusing them. No polygamous culture is really polyamrous. It's not a free for all.

When we come up with a better word to describe "legal marriage benefits shared among any number of mutually-agreeing persons regardless of sex and/or gender," I'll use that. There doesn't seem to be any well-establish term for that.

Polyamory isn't about marriage, although a ployamorous couple may be married. It is about relationships. Polyamorous people don't have a collection of wives or husbands. Every individual is free to make their own choices,and form relationships, and the most important rule is that partners do not conceal their other relationships.

 

[Left Coast]

I have already said a few times. Here in poor communities in South Africa. I've also said to you that it is a common occurrence today though it happened even more in the past.

But I don't believe you're interested in context because you have so far refused to acknowledge the difficult context in which he earns his income. It's suits your purposes to pretend he gets the money from thin air without cost.

Simply not true. I've now said multiple times that I fully acknowledge hardship can still exist for men despite their structural advantages over women.

There is no proof that a woman divorced from her husband would fail to survive. Most of the time if she is unemployed she simply goes back to her family.

Lol, right, to be financially dependent on other men. Because people need money to survive. Why are you straining to avoid admitting the obvious?

 

[Left Coast]

It is necessary for some peoples survival today. I think the relevant links have already been provided by you or someone else to show this.

Definitely not by me. You're equating existence with necessity. What's your evidence that such arrangements cannot change?

Whether you find it insulting or not does not change the fact.

And declaring it doesn't make it a fact.

Your question of where I get this well known fact is actually quite astounding. Do progressives only concern themselves with the challenges women face?

A Google search of "youth unemployment and crime" brings up so many results that only someone who has never cared to find out bout the adverse effects unemployment has on men would not know about this correlation.

However I'm not surprised as it is merely confirming the trend that I have noticed throughout our discussion that you are not all that interested in the hardships that men go through. In your mind any hardships men face pale in comparison with what women face and can safely be ignored unless (I imagine) those challenges directly affect women.

You are strawmanning my position. Again, I am a man. I have an extremely self-interested stake in hardships faced by men. I'm quite interested in alleviating hardships men face. I've now explained to you repeatedly that power dynamics play out on multiple levels. Patriarchy doesn't mean every man has a carefree life and faces no hardship.

Your cited study does not demonstrate your claim. I'm aware there's a correlation between unemployment and crime. What we were discussing was the notion that in poor societies we should defer all job opportunities to men before women, because if we don't the unemployed men will be "menaces to society." Not only is a silly exaggerration, it's a myopic and unfair solution to the problem. Uneducated and unemployed women also harm society and keep it from progressing. Societies thrive, as we see all around us right now, when men and women are both given economic opportunity.

Of course its equivalent. In fact it is very clearly equivalent since we have just agreed that in poorer societies in which men take the bulk of the few economic opportunities available, marriage is a woman's ticket to getting a share in whatever income is earned by a man. So literally her marriage is like her finding a job in the context of her society.

Your equivocation continues. My employer does not own me. My boss doesn't have the prerogative to f*ck me and obligate ne to have his children. I can go find another job whenever I want for whatever reason, and it won't ruin my life if I do so, or even if I have many jobs throughout my life. You are rationalizing painfully coercive situations, and it's more than a little disturbing.

There are many women who cannot make the choice to not work too, no? I mean doesn't your country (and mine) have millions of single mothers? Is the single mother oppressed in your view because she has no choice but to work (in a similar way that a woman from a poor community cannot choose to work but must stay home?)

Oppressed to a degree, but not remotely the same. The differences I just outlined are obvious.

Now you can decide whether you think those who pressure women to work are better than those who pressure them to stay home. But don't pretend that the societal pressures on both sides are any less.

I will continue to point out that societal pressures in freer societies are less than more oppressive ones, because it's completely (and definitionally) obvious.

You'll have to explain to me what the purpose of this post is. Have we disagreed on the existence of forced marriages?

The point is to cite the evidence of the lived reality of women in the circumstances we're discussing. The point of this thread is to ask the left what their problem with polygamy is. I keep telling you.

 

[Thanda]

Simply not true. I've now said multiple times that I fully acknowledge hardship can still exist for men despite their structural advantages over women.

I like how you say that hardships for men "can" exist rather than acknowledging that they do exist. Again your agenda and mindset is very transparent.

Lol, right, to be financially dependent on other men. Because people need money to survive. Why are you straining to avoid admitting the obvious?

False, people need food and shelter to survive, not money. Money is just one of the means to that end (though admittedly a big means).

In fact we have already established that a woman married to a man who has money, but makes no money herself personally, will survive just fine.

 

[Left Coast]

I like how you say that hardships for men "can" exist rather than acknowledging that they do exist. Again your agenda and mindset is very transparent.

Are you trying to misunderstand me? Men face hardships. How much more simply can I phrase this for you?

False, people need food and shelter to survive, not money. Money is just one of the means to that end (though admittedly a big means).

It's the only means, for the last, I don't know, few thousands years? Either you pay for it or someone else pays for it for you.

In fact we have already established that a woman married to a man who has money, but makes no money herself personally, will survive just fine.

Yes, dependent on him for survival. Which limits her freedom/autonomy. Which is why patriarchy and polygamy are problematic. Which is why the left opposes them. For the 20th time.