Hagar asks in the comments to "Jonathan Rauch doubles down on the supply-of-women argument for why polygamy is not like same-sex marriage." Briefly, the supply-of-women argument says that government may exclude polygamists from the fundamental freedom to marry because if some men marry more than one woman, there will be fewer women available to pair up with unmarried men thereby cure them of their dangerous destructiveness.
Hagar is suggesting that polyandry could solve the problem. Everyone's picturing polygyny, which Jonathan Rauch called "almost invariably the real-world pattern." Rauch also points to a map, showing the prevalence of polygamy in countries that where women are not equal. But, as I say in the earlier post, this is America, and the question is what will happen going forward. The supply-of-women argument asks us to worry about what will happen going forward.
So Hagar's question is apt. Why must we deny women the right to choose to be one of multiple wives in a polygynous marriage if the same interest — marrying up the unmarried men — could be served by empowering, encouraging, and even subsidizing — rampant polyandry? That ought to vacuum up the excess men that are screwing up the world (according to the supply-of-women argument!).
१ जुलै, २०१५
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८५ टिप्पण्या:
Too many assumptions to wade through. Can't get a sensible answer to this question.
That ought to vacuum up the excess men
Excellent visual.
Briefly, the supply-of-women argument says that government may exclude polygamists from the fundamental freedom to marry
No. It says that government can limit the marriage arrangements that it will legally recognize. Polygamists already have the same fundamental freedom to marry that everyone else has.
Just as gay people did before the recent action by the Supreme Legislature.
"Excellent visual."
Sounds like you've had some rewarding experiences with suction appliances... Or am I mispicturing?
That ought to vacuum up the excess men
Great. Another abortion post.
Ah the voyeur Jersey princess has spoken.
"No. It says that government can limit the marriage arrangements that it will legally recognize. Polygamists already have the same fundamental freedom to marry that everyone else has."
Let's focus on the legal analysis. Now that there is a right to marry that isn't limited by what's deeply rooted in the tradition, how will polygamy be distinguished and excluded? What is the government interest?
Now, I think there is a government interest (having to do with managing tax law and benefits and child custody and so forth that have all be structured to fit 2-person unions). But the discussion here is very specifically whether the supply-of-women argument works as the govt interest. Stay closely on this point or the discussion will get confusing.
"Great. Another abortion post."
What doesn't suck?
Another "women are better than men" argument.
@Tom
You were probably writing that question as I was answering it and posting one minute ahead of you.
Got it now?
Heh. Go ahead and pass this - seriously, I want to see it.
Polyandry doesn't work because nobody is happy with the arrangement. If men want to fuck a woman who is regularly getting laid by other men, they'll go to a brothel and leave afterwards - they aren't going to live there and they certainly aren't going to make themselves financially liable for raising three or four other men's children.
And women would rather be celibate than give two shits about the kind of man who will break the above rule and content himself as husband #4. I'd pay good money to watch the atomic rejection that would follow that marriage proposal.
All for naught anyway. In the long run, the marriage structure that survives is the one that produces the next generation. A society that praises every coupling except the one that best produces and provides for offspring is a society in the process of being replaced by one that does. Rate it's going, Europe will be "winning" if women's rights in 2100 have even a passing resemblance to those of 1500.
We live in Omelas. Fun hedonism today paid for by the servitude of the innocent of tomorrow.
"Another "women are better than men" argument."
Right and please note that I'm rejecting it. I'm highlighting that is a girls-rule-boys-drool argument so people won't use it.
There are better arguments, arguments that don't use sex stereotypes.
"Tom said... This comment has been removed by the author."
I guess he got it.
Okay, okay, but if we're just talking about America, then this isn't a zero-sum game, either. That is: just because one American man takes four wives does not necessarily mean that three American men are left without brides- we simply create a new immigration visa for super attractive foreign women with the "right attributes" to make a great wife for an American, and we import enough Eastern European and Latin American women (or whatever nationalities the market demands) to close the gap. You don't worry about these "wifeless young men" tearing up the country and you help address poverty in developing nations. Boom. Problem solved.
Agent Smith: You hear that Mr. Anderson? That is the sound of inevitability...
Another "women are better than men" argument.
7/1/15, 7:51 AM
---
That's Rauch's argument, yes. Rauch's seems to think that men all need wives to civilize them, so it's no fair for some men to take more than their fair share.
As for this actual post, I can see a problem with polyandry. When a multiple-wives marriage breaks up, the children all know who their parents are. The kids just have lots of stepmothers. Polyandrous marriages would lose the presumption-of-paternity aspect of marriage. That could be worked around, I guess.
So lesbians are abandoning their patriotic duties?
There'd be a huge imbalance of demand for sex and its supply in polyandry.
Of course, I've seen some MRAs argue against presumed paternity in marriage, so maybe that's not a problem?
This "supply of women" argument assumes that there wouldn't be polygamist marriages with one woman and multiple men (or one woman and multiple women or one man and multiple men). Given all the possible permutations, this "supply of women" argument doesn't make any sense at all.
Polygamy will have a profound affect on Country songs.
The Clint Eastwood musical Paint Your Wagon was about polyandry, among other things. It didn't work out for the reasons it will almost never work out. Even under the perfect conditions of the movie: You have the beautiful woman, an incredible rarity on the American frontier, Liv Ulmann, and two first rate men in Lee Marvin and Clint Eastwood. First they fight, for a short while they share her on alternate nights(see, even that sounds terrible) then Lee Marvin rides away
I was hoping that polygyny was a medical condition that would greatly ease polyandry, but google says no.
Old joke. What's the difference between a job and a wife? After five years, the job still sucks...........Can anyone name a polyandrous society? The fact that they have never existed should give you some idea as to their viability........There have been some polyandrous women, but the men in their life seldom enjoyed the arrangement.
this "supply of women" argument doesn't make any sense at all.
Go live somewhere where the powerful men vacuum up all the beautiful women and get back to me.
People have this bizarre idea that they can understand the complete ramifications of cultural changes. All you can do is live it and see. Others have done that for us.
Polygamy will have a profound affect on Country songs.
7/1/15, 8:02 AM
---
Men who are unable to find a wife will have multiple trucks.
So lesbians are abandoning their patriotic duties?
It's not a "patriotic duty," this isn't Russia, but producing and raising children in a stable home is certainly a behavior that a government has a rational interest in subsidizing and incentivizing and that successful cultures value and encourage.
So lesbians are abandoning their patriot duty?
---
Don't forget the nuns.
Forgot all the hypothetical polygyny arguments. Is there any plausible reason (other than just "it would make things tricky because we always assume marriages are two people") to allow two gays to marry but not allow three gays to marry each other?
Free market to bargain for a better deal is the Libertarian answer.
How much for that young stud in the window ? Traditional marriage and families are big boundaries that keep out enemies seeking to swap spouses for awhile.
Rumor has it Adultery is still a destructive act, and Tiger Woods agrees.
Ann is just now getting caught up.
"Polygamy" doesn't necessarily imply multiple women for each man.
Even if it did, it should suit upper-middle-class and professional women just fine. Since college-educated women outnumber college-educated men by about 3 - 2 these days. Women lower in the social scale may or may not bother to get married, but they are much closer to gender parity.
So you're not going to make polygamy go away by appealing to how bad it will be for women in today's society. The pro-ssm strategy of getting studies done to show that kids do just fine in families headed same-sex couples has seen to that. Historical definitions of marriage are irrelevant now. All that matters is, can you show it's bad now? If not, you have to let it in.
#LoveWins.
Nepal has a people that practices polyandry (see Kipling's "Kim"), and there are others around the world.
China and India have a surplus of men because they have been aborting or killing female babies.
All of the Moslem world has a surplus of young men because of polygamy.
If the mullahs could discover an ancient text that would allow women to engage in polyandry, that would solve a lot of problems.
Why don't we just pretend human biology is something other than what it is, and then invent a sexual utopia?
After all, legal analysis is not limited by mere physical reality, not when we (in the USA at least) have the right define our own concepts of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
Is there any plausible reason
No. Not by this decision. There is no reason that you couldn't have a marriage app on your iPhone like Tinder or whatever. Right swipe your married, left swipe, nope.
Not a logical one anyway.
@William:Can anyone name a polyandrous society?
Yes. But the question is irrelevant-no one could name a same-sex marriage society either.
Polyandry worked for Tibet because it kept farms in the family. There are multiple areas of India where it exists.
and child custody and so forth that have all be[sic] structured to fit 2-person unions
But of course procreation is not a sufficiently significant function of heterosexual marriage to preserve the standard definition.
Seriously, custody and tax law can be adjusted to fit the new model once the inalienable right to polygamous marriage is recognized. Doesn't seem that difficult. You've even blogged about instances where gay marriage has also introduced complexities in custody law relating to surrogates. So it's not like we're breaking new ground on that front.
You can't deny rights based on flimsy excuses that acknowledging those rights would force us to change the law.
Polyandry worked for Tibet because it kept farms in the family. There are multiple areas of India where it exists.
Yeah, it's not that hard to imagine where it could make economic sense for the men and woman involved.
Even a pair of women could keep collection of men working for them and happy, especially if the men had few other options.
"As for this actual post, I can see a problem with polyandry. When a multiple-wives marriage breaks up, the children all know who their parents are. The kids just have lots of stepmothers. Polyandrous marriages would lose the presumption-of-paternity aspect of marriage. That could be worked around, I guess."As for this actual post, I can see a problem with polyandry. When a multiple-wives marriage breaks up, the children all know who their parents are. The kids just have lots of stepmothers. Polyandrous marriages would lose the presumption-of-paternity aspect of marriage. That could be worked around, I guess."
That's why this should be done with statutory law, not constitutional law. You need new structures for >2-person unions.
The who's-the-father problem could be seen in a positive light, sort of a reverse of the way one gun in a firing squad is loaded with a blank. All can think maybe it wasn't me. In polyandry, all can think, maybe it was. Of course, a test could be done, but I think the deal should be a presumption of fatherhood. All husbands are on the hook. And that's good for kids (at least re $ support).
and child custody and so forth that have all be[sic] structured to fit 2-person unions
And whole educational systems were structured to educate the races separately. These things can all be torn down by the courts.
Once the court arrogated to itself the properly democratic power to decide fundamental cultural issues, there is no end to the absurdity.
All husbands are on the hook. And that's good for kids (at least re $ support).
And all wives on the hook in a polygamous marriage should one of the wives leave with a child. I am sure that will happen.
The selective-child policy has not worked. Perhaps an honest one-child policy will equalize the balance of male and female clumps of cells.
Also, why is the focus of un-"equal" only on polygamy. Since the sexual revolution, marriage has been less about "love", than about economic convenience. The problem for "equal" is that they selectively exclude a diverse range of relationships, of which polygamy is a small component.
The progressive liberals need to address sacrificial rites under pro-choice, discrimination under class diversity, and selective exclusion under "equal". Of the three, "equal" is probably the least grievous violation of human and civil rights.
...but I think the deal should be a presumption of fatherhood. All husbands are on the hook. And that's good for kids (at least re $ support).
So men are tools of society. But it is offensive that women might be.
Got it.
"Can anyone name a polyandrous society?"
Wikipedia:
"Of the 1,231 societies listed in the 1980 Ethnographic Atlas, 186 were found to be monogamous; 453 had occasional polygyny; 588 had more frequent polygyny; and 4 had polyandry.[1] Polyandry is less rare than this figure which listed only those examples found in the Himalayan mountains (28 societies). More recent studies have found more than 50 other societies practicing polyandry.
"Fraternal polyandry was traditionally practiced among Tibetans in Nepal, parts of China and part of northern India, in which two or more brothers are married to the same wife, with the wife having equal "sexual access" to them. It is most common in egalitarian societies marked by high male mortality or male absenteeism. It is associated with partible paternity, the cultural belief that a child can have more than one father.
"Polyandry is believed to be more likely in societies with scarce environmental resources, as it is believed to limit human population growth and enhance child survival. It is a rare form of marriage that exists not only among poor families, but also the elite. For example, polyandry in the Himalayan mountains is related to the scarcity of land; the marriage of all brothers in a family to the same wife allows family land to remain intact and undivided. If every brother married separately and had children, family land would be split into unsustainable small plots. In Europe, this was prevented through the social practice of impartible inheritance (i.e. disinheriting most siblings, many of whom then became celibate monks and priests)."
Why is it always multiple wives that are discussed and not multiple husbands? Even the discussion of polygamy by Mr. Rauch shows his left wing sexism.
Simple point, really - when one defines marraige as an individual fulfillment thing rather than a support of nature and family thing, the rest of the limits fade quickly into oblivion because "who are you to tell me I can't fulfill myself through 3 husbands?"
This has always been the moral argument for normal marriage. The legal argument was, its a state power not enumerated in the federal consitituion and the federal government has no authority to govern it.
The who's-the-father problem could be seen in a positive light, sort of a reverse of the way one gun in a firing squad is loaded with a blank. All can think maybe it wasn't me. In polyandry, all can think, maybe it was. Of course, a test could be done, but I think the deal should be a presumption of fatherhood. All husbands are on the hook. And that's good for kids (at least re $ support).
---
So with three or four legal parents, are decisions about schooling and medical care made by committee? When they split the sheets four ways, do the kids spend one week a month with each parent? Or three months a year?
Multiple equal parents is not good for kids. Multiple step parents (a village under one roof) could be.
"Tom said... This comment has been removed by the author."
I guess he got it.
Yeah. I shouldn't have removed the comment. I just had an "Oh, duh" moment.
For the record in case historians want to understand the exchange, I asked, "What does any of this have to do with constitutional rights?" Of course, the answer is that it goes to the question of government interest and whether there is a rational basis for a polygamy ban.
It could still be asked how this is relevant in relation to whether Obergefell requires legal polygamy. Seems like that decision rested more on the fundamental right to have one's marriage choices dignified by the state than the lack of a rational basis for a gay marriage ban.
To clarify, by "equal parents" I mean more than two people having equal rights to the same child. Equality in every other way is good. It's just that too many cooks confuse the hell out of the soup.
The Chinese solution was to normalize prostitution under government control. Since then, they have expanded to colonizing Africa, Europe, America, etc. to reduce the local liabilities of their abortion policy, with an added benefit of expanding their sphere of influence and access to natural resources. It solves three problems at once, and doesn't entail the mass casualties associated with progressive solutions, or moral hazards created by their latest policy of selective exclusion under the "equal" policy.
A polyandrous marriage between the Pandava brothers and Drapaudi was key to the story line in the Mahabharata, the world's longest (and arguably greatest) epic poem. Not incidentally it was a major contributing factor to the outbreak of a cataclysmic war in which even God, in his incarnation as Krishna, felt obliged to take part.
Polygamy may not create a shortage of women in this country. If American men can have multiple wives they may not choose American women to fill those roles.
A woman in China told me this joke:
In Heaven you will have An English house, Chinese food, a Japanese wife and an American wage.
In Hell you will have English food. a Chinese wage, a Japanese house and an American wife.
Bob Boyd nails it. I think it's highly presumptuous of American women to think we're going to choose them when so many other options are available.
At long last, madam, your sense of decency (ha! Sen. Welch to the rainbow courtesy phone! Decency is literally dead) leads you to believe that the decision rule in this case is the convenience of the Federal government?
It is a rare form of marriage that exists not only among poor families, but also the elite. For example, polyandry in the Himalayan mountains is related to the scarcity of land; the marriage of all brothers in a family to the same wife allows family land to remain intact and undivided.
In the Mahabharata the five Pandava brothers constituted an elite group: they were princes and sons of Pandu, King of Hastinapur in northern India. Their common-law wife (and wife in common!), Draupadi, is also a member of the elite, the daughter of the King of Panchala. She bore a child to each of the brothers, who also had other wives. We are given to understand that this polyandrous marriage is a rarity even among these members of the Kshatriya (warrior/ruler) caste.
Until Anthony Kennedy finishes making all the rules for marriage for all the states, admission to the club will remain wide open to anyone who bangs loudly enough on the door.
Where, for example, does it require any sexual attraction at all for the benefit-seeking partners to avail themselves of marriage as an access vehicle?
I'm surprised that a libertarian like Rauch would be so interested in positive freedoms. There is a version of marriage as a negative liberty that allows for same sex marriage--it must allow for it. So, I'm very confused about why he of all people would take up this position.
The positive liberty to marry doesn't currently exist in this country.
I've got it, Ann. There is no heaven or hell, there is no earth or sky, if it be between you and being the boss. Does that seem virtuous to you?
Also. Have you even considered the number of murders this would cause? Please do so. If you play dumb, I shall have to mansplain.
It appears that with respect to certain matters US law recognizes foreign polygamous marriages. Eugene Volokh wrote an interesting column on this subject in late 2014:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/05/polygamous-foreign-marriages-under-u-s-law/
What other central institutions and traditions can be taken apart and put back together on the fly?
It's like a puzzle. Great work for lawyers, central planners and the best and the brightest.
I know I've got a place locked up in the merito-bureaupolitique. Tedious work, lots of fires to put out, but lots of puzzles to solve too.
Great pension. SO much equality and diversity at work.
Tim in VT,
Great example and great movie, Paint Your Wagon but the beautiful actress was Jean Seberg.
Herman Melville's first book was Typee and involved polyandry. The work is thought to be not entirely non-fiction though.
Libertarian, huh. You work with the allies you have.
That said, they need to work on their message. It needs to be internally, externally, and mutually consistent. They sound a lot like their liberal counterparts. That would explain the apparent duality of the two parties.
It's not a "patriotic duty," this isn't Russia, but producing and raising children in a stable home is certainly a behavior that a government has a rational interest in subsidizing and incentivizing and that successful cultures value and encourage.
I think Tim has this exactly right. I would take it further and say that a government has no rational interest in subsidizing and incentivizing those things which do not create positive externalities.
polygamy: more than one spouse
polygyny: more than one wife
polyandry: more than one husband
Rauch apparently hasn't thought his position through. He overlooks the fact that already there are several million woman in the US married already to Government Husband. And more are marrying Uncle Sam everyday.
I'll refine my previous question. Can anyone name a polyandrous society that is an attractive place in which to live? Small Tibetan communities are not much bothered with illegal immigrants hoping to get in on that cushy polyandry deal.
SSM proponents who claimed the Constitution requires state recognition of those marriages are now furiously trying to scramble and find some limiting principle to say that states are not required to recognize all of these other arrangements.
Economics, supply of men. Or women. Whatever they come up with is a helluva more arbitrary then ones used against recognizing SSM.
Even worse, they have to use Kennedy's opinion to find it. It's not there.
Love really is blind, isn't it?
"Most of us know our mothers, but it is a fortunate man who can be sure of his father."
So, in some societies the children belong to their mothers' clans.
Why you gotta be so rude? I'm gonna marry them anyway.
SMG 11:38. What makes you think "blind?" Ann wants poly or at least to hedge society so that she has the option. She thinks she might do better. If she didn't she'd oppose it. Why shouldn't she be selfish ? Clashes with the hippie chick cream center at first glance, but then that's where the self-righteous entitlement comes from.
polyandry would have the same effect as polygamy. Even if though its not legal, people are still doing it anyway, so woul't those people still be sucking up the number of available people? Lesbianism and gayness also does the same thing.
When I say polygamy I generally mean, group marriage in all permutations. There could be group gay marriage too.
"Let's focus on the legal analysis. Now that there is a right to marry that isn't limited by what's deeply rooted in the tradition, how will polygamy be distinguished and excluded? What is the government interest?"
The government interest would be that it's harder to write a ontract for polygamy.
Go Hagar! Yeah, if polygamy becomes acceptable, why not polyandry? Hindus are ahead in this aspect. In Mahabharata, Draupadi was married to five men. Certainly solves present day Chinese problems of women shortage given their one child policy and favoring male child. Goes for some parts of India also.
Polyandry and matriarchy, yay!
jr565: "The government interest would be that it's harder to write a ontract for polygamy."
That's a laugh. Haven't you noticed how much longer and more complex all contracts are these days? bought a house in CA lately? It is to cry. There's a positive interest among many groups, in and out of government, in increasing contract complexity.
jr565: now that I reread your post, perhaps you were already thinking along the same line as I was.
Does anyone believe that if public opinion had been strongly anti-SSM that the SCOTUS would have made it legal? Naw, me neither. They can dress it up with legalese all they want but it’s just another example of judicial cheerleading. I’m personally pro-SSM but I’m also realistic about what has just happened.
Public opinion has been swift to change on this issue. One of the reasons could be that it is rather simple: Allow gays full access to the institution of marriage. The emotional bond is between two individuals, the same as straight marriage.
However, I do not believe that same public will soon embrace any of the ‘polys,’ therefore I feel we are fairly safe from a similar SCOTUS ruling in that area.
Assuming the SCOTUS will use the same bogus legalese to normalize polygamy as it used to normalize SSM is the fallacy in the thinking of many who express the fear of a SCOTUS-approved polygamy. I forget who said, “We do what we want to do and find reasons later.” If, and that’s a big if, the SCOTUS ever deigned to hear such a case they would find some equally nonexistent constitutional grounds on which to deny polygamy … unless, of course, public opinion is strongly in favor of polygamy.
I really cannot argue with grackle.
The only thing I would quibble is that predicting what the public will embrace 20 years down the line is now nearly impossible.
I'm sure that Costco will stock up on more women if the supply runs low due to polygamy.
That's how the market works.
it would be politically impossible in any country with a pretense of legal sex equality to legalize polygyny without also legalizing polyandry. Probably also more "exotic"groups which have more than one of each sex.
The problem is which opportunities will be taken by real people, and in what numbers. Once legal, I'm certain there would quickly be polyandrous marriages - I know people in such relationships, and at least some would legalize them. But nowhere near the numbers of people who would choose polygynous marriages. Notice that societies which had polyandry, the co-husbands are usually brothers. That's just human nature. So how much incentive or subsidy would there have to be for polyandrous marriages to equalize the numbers? Is legal co-paternity an incentive or a disincentive?
> Why must we deny women the right to choose to be one of multiple wives in a
> polygynous marriage if the same interest — marrying up the unmarried men —
> could be served by empowering, encouraging, and even subsidizing — rampant
> polyandry?
Historically (which is all we have to go on) women were more willing to share a husband than husbands have been to share a wife.
The notion that high status males will share their stables with other men is...well, nuts.
The idea that most young men will want to (long term) share a wife is, well, nuts.
What *will* happen (and this a prediction based on historical behaviors) is that having multiple wives will be a status symble. Shortly it will be higher status men vacuuming up eligible young women. As this happens they will be making offers to younger and younger women. Eventually arranged marriages will start to happen as the upper middle class men bump down against the legal limits.
This will leave young men adrift--the males of higher status fathers will have access to the marriage markets that less well placed men are locked out of, leaving them with the lowest of females (those will poor reproductive chances and serious physical defects).
This will lock men out of any sort of genetic legacy.
This is similar to that is happening right now among bottom quintile males. Since women like to "trade up", and a stable middle class household is "up" from trailer parks and monthly hotels, young men in the bottom quintile have to do *something* to make themselves attractive to mates. Right now options include things like getting better jobs, and joininging the 2nd or 3rd quintiles in the "above ground" economy, or joinging gangs (Crips, Hells Angels etc.) and getting into the underground economy (or it's analogs in rural america). In short their options are bettering themselves, or gaining status through illegal activities and violence.
And yes, high status, financially powerful women will do the same with men, but then they'll find out that that *doesn't* get them the same sort of respect with their peers that they thought, doesn't have the same benefits at home, and that their stable will stray more.
Men are wired for more than one wife and are constrained by civilization to one woman. This has some very beneficial effects for both men and women.
Blow that shit up at your peril.
Wait, who am I kidding, you'll just look down at your navel, consult the all powerful OED and pass on some snarky comment Mead made as he was lying in the gutter with his intestines spilling out after some young low status male cut him during a robbery to get a bride-price together.
>Does anyone believe that if public opinion had been strongly
>anti-SSM that the SCOTUS would have made it legal?
Public opinion IS that strong against it, but not in the circles that the SCOTUS move.
swm from canada i love to get married to a polyandry women from any ethnic background to be her 2nd or 10th tdasonwrva@gmail.com
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा