Two timing: An Overworked mother's plea for polygamy

Blah blah blah....

This is crap. :eyes:

(comment directed at the author)

a promotion at work to someone without children in this manner "Why should s/he get promoted? Because s/he works late and comes in on weekends and travels for the company when you ask? You should consider the fact that I am raising a family on my salary and the people you have promoted over me are not!"

As for polygamy, I don't know if that can work - human beings like to outrank each other.

Children deserve full blown nurturing, one way or another.

It's not for me, but if some want to be married to more than one person, why does the federal government get to say "No"?

That being said, certain logistics would need to be worked out, ie who gets the survivor SSN benefits, who gets the automatic medical POA, etc.

Also, there would need to be protections for (what will usually be) the women. For example, all parties involved must be aware this is a multiple spouse marriage and what their legal status is and rights are in the relationship.

Whether people want the "extra help" or believe in the biblical precedent, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to have a polygamous marriage. The practical concerns could be addressed without completely outlawing it.

Us ugly guys need a chance. Brad Pitt would have 50 wives.

:spray:

Would want to be nagged by multiple wives?

:evilgrin:

:spank:


Though I understand the very real sentiment. Heck, there are days I'd be very happy without the one husband I have- I can't imagine having to put up with multiple spouses on those days! Egads!

"I wouldn't want two wives. I mean, would you really want TWO women in bed you can't satisfy?
And think about all the talking that would happen afterward. You'd never get to sleep!"

More than one wife = more than one mother-in-law!!!

Is that the federal government doesn't get to say "no" unless you ask it to recognise the marriage legally.

There's nothing to stop you living in a polygamous relationship, and getting any religion you can find that will recognise it to sanctify it; the government just won't let you claim the legal benefits of being married with regards to more than one person.

This is much less obviously a bad thing than the government actually fobidding the practice of polygamy, if it is at all.

Remember that while the practice of polygamy in itself isn't necessarily harmful, it tends to lead to undue pressure being placed on very young women to get involved in relationships with much older men in most of the examples of societies that have practiced it that I know of (mormons, some forms of Islam and some African tribes are the ones I know of, although I should stress that I am *not* claiming to have a well-informed opinion on any of those).

Polygamy only really works out for a society where there is an imbalance in the gender ratio, otherwise you end up with a lot of resentful singles.

The Religious-right says they want to preserve "traditional" families of one man plus one woman.

Has there ever been a time in history when we have not given higher priority to sending men off to fight in wars?

The "traditional" family in Christian culture has been a woman raising a child within a community group, while her husband occasionally returns from Crusades and wars and exploration and trade to copulate with her before leaving again.

If they want to "preserve the family," then stop sending the parents off to war!

For ONCE!

Anyway, here's an article on Community Parenting:

Does it Take a Village? Thoughts on Community Parenting

by Tanya Cromartie-Twaddle

Some of us are ‘hood’ mommas and papas. You know, we’re positively nosey…constantly in other families’ business. It’s natural for us. I look out for and after my neighbors’ children and expect them to do the same for mine. I’m quick to inquire and to reprimand. And yeah, if I see it, I’m going to tell it! My teenage neighbors know this all too well.

I’m sure I inherited this guardian attitude from my ancestors. I grew up in a small town full of nosey neighbors. You’ve heard the saying… “dippin’ and dappin’ and don’t know what’s happening.” Actually, they did know what was happening. My momma knew the dirt we did on the way home from school before we hit the doorstep. There were hood parents everywhere, just waiting for one of us to do something wrong. We knew we were being “watched” and understood that we had better respect and mind any adult telling us right from wrong.

We had to answer to them, also. There was no such thing as “you ain’t my momma, you can’t tell me what to do!” We didn’t realize it at the time, but this system helped us feel safe and connected. We were cared for. Sure, we got sick of being told what to do and what not to do, but we knew who we could turn to in a time of need.

Hungry? Locked out of the house? Miss Doretha would give you a pb&j sandwich and let you wait on her porch until someone came home to let you in. My momma managed to keep the six of us out of jail, off the streets, and in school despite our poor socio-economic condition. She didn’t do it by herself. She did it with the helping hands, eyes, and ears of this natural block watch.

<snip>

There are no simple answers to the problems of our youth. I am not naïve enough to think that every child is going to listen to and respect me…or be “saved from the streets” because I’m all up in their business. I do believe that it does take a village to raise a child. I’ve seen community parenting work in real life. There’s a little bit of it going on right here on my block. To all the neighborhood mommas and papas…don’t stop. Stay safe.

Riverwest Currents - Volume 1 - Issue 10 - November 2002

More:
http://www.riverwestcurrents.org/2002/November/000237.html

Before the rise of the "two car family" and "exurbia" and "interstate highways" people actually lived in pedestrian friendly, bicycle friendly, child friendly neighborhoods - with "extended families" within walking distance.

I'm sorry but I stop reading right there. If men think they are so special they need not only one but TWO or more women to "service" them and their needs I think that's arrogant. This is one reason a lot of guys subscribe to polyamory too (they seem to think they're *that* special) -- but at least in polyamory, women are also allowed multiple partners.

But -- this comes from someone who cannot subscribe to monogamy,polyamory, polygamy, polygyny - or any of the various "relationship models" being marketed these days. ;) To freakin Hell with them all, I say (but that's just moi).

Having to cook and clean after two males would be too much. At least I would make sure that the gay male is into housework and cooking.

Doesn't that mean you're against the procreation of the human race?

Oh, and a woman does not want two husbands.
A woman doesn't really even want one husband, but they have no other way to kill bugs or open pickle jars.

One - I kill my own bugs

Two - If I had 2-3 husbands out there working, I could afford to stay home and raise the kids.

Three - We like variety just as much as the guys do... if ya know what I mean. :smoke:

I've never met a woman that wanted to have sex as much as me.
I fail to conceive of a woman that could handle that much sex from two men.

I've learned to pick balding men. Scientifically proven that hair loss is caused by excess testosterone. :evilgrin:

... I am severely balding. Thats sorta interesting...

:evilgrin:

:)
The rate of hair shedding in androgenic alopecia is speeded up by three forces: advancing age, an inherited tendency to bald early, and an over-abundance of the male hormone dihydrotestosterone (DHT) within the hair follicle. DHT is a highly active form of testosterone, which influences many aspects of manly behavior, from sex drive to aggression.
http://www.geocities.com/hotsprings/4266/part3.htm

I could handle two or three men. On my schedule, of course. I'd do a week with each, with a week off for 'me time'. :-)

The "Natural" state of "Marriage" as programed into our genetic code

1) Men select multiple wives based on their genetic quality and their ability to maintain the household and raise the children. Good birthing hips, an ample supply of body-fat for lean times, good around the house, good with kids, etc. The man maintains a small harem for this purpose.

2) The man maintains his harem of wives, which is as big as he can maintain based upon his ability to provide for them. In addition to reproducing with these wives, he will seek-out other women to copulate with. By reproducing with women outside his harem, he gets to pass along his genes, and give some other man the responsibility of providing for them. Ideally, he would copulate with-- and often rape-- women from a rival clan group.

3) The woman would seek to marry a man with good genetic traits, who would be a good provider, and who would treat her kindly. Preferably someone with high status within the clan.

4) The woman, when ovulating, would seek to cheat on her husband, and copulate with the most robust, genetically fit man she could find. Even today, women are more likely to cheat on their husbands when they're ovulating.

This is our Primate Heritage. This is what is "natural" for human beings. It is what is hardwired into our genes.

This is why we create laws and social contracts and moral codes to rise above our animal ancestors.

What makes us human is our ability and desire to codify and adhere to rules that sacrifice the interests of our "Selfish Genes," in favor of something perhaps more healthy, and more in the interests of the common good.

The truly moral person adheres to morality because it's the right thing to do.

However, our country is over-run by small-minded primitives who need to fear punishment from the government, or from an invisible man in the sky, in order to make their clan behave "morally." Those people are much closer to our pre-neolithic ancestors, because they still need an appeal to their selfish genes to make them behave out of fear.

Humanists are moral out of love for their fellow humans.
Christianists and Fundamentalists are "moral" because they fear punishment.


See also:

HUMANISM AND ITS ASPIRATIONS
Humanist Manifesto III, a successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933*
http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.htm

there are such couples 'out there'. Just not with any legeal standing in the long run. Of course they understand that.

Over all, 'maarriage' is a contract. Now days it gives long term legeal rights over property, retirement, etc.

Except for cases were a person is being forced into the relationship(contract) or underage, I don't care who gets married, how many they are married to (so long as all spouses are aware).

i am a believer in problem solving, and higher in all..... but this is just offensive...

and i cant particularly say why. i might, but then i might be called names too. dont have kids then if you cant figure out how not to be so damn self absorbed to have everything...... that a two parent family cannot take care of each other. the answer doesnt come to get another wife. f* get a housekeeper, get a nanny to do all the running around...or do something about the scheduling, or dont have kids.

As a single parent who manages just fine, I find this offensive also. And why does it have to be another wife - what about another husband. Sounds to me as if this person is unhappy, and that would probably be the case no matter what the situation.

Apparently, this woman is living with an inconsiderate jerk, and figures that another wife is the answer :eyes:

Hire a maid, or get your lazy-ass husband off the couch.

(fyi, my fiancee does the majority of the housework, but I work 2 jobs, 1 full-time and 1 part-time, plus going to grad school, while she works about 8 hours a week - when that becomes more equal, I'll do more of the housework)

Which is more the modern thing to do.

Beaware, some times things don't turn out equal for a 'time.' We grow together, but we also have personal growth spurts. Some times things can become to over wellming for a person.. When that happens, the partner holds things together for a time. The pay off, what goes one way, may some day go the other way.

it isn't an eye-for-an-eye thing.

Just that I know that right now I can't do much housework, what with all my other stuff, and right now, she has the time.

For instance, right now, she's been essentially unemployed for almost 5 years. I've been working 2 jobs much of that time, and doing grad school the last 2. And though I expect her to find something long-term eventually, and she doesn't contribute much financially, she does in other ways, and none of it is really stuff you can calculate.

We're not keeping tabs on who's done what, or who owes what. It doesn't work that way. (I'd hate to think of what a relationship that did would be like)

What's so complex about "all of us, together, tonight"?

I would rather see our culture do whatever it had to do so a family could live a good life with only one of the adults having to work outside the home.

Damn. That sounds like I advocate a return to the days of Donna Reed and June Cleaver, don't it?

No, that's not what I'm thinking...

But then, "Ward, don't you think you were a little hard on the Beaver last night? Maybe we should get you another wife to take some of the load off of me?"

First, if people *want* to be in a polygamous relationship, I could care less.

Second, the majority of men have yet to step up to the plate in terms of sharing the domestic load. Studies still show that even men who are seen as "good" fathers by society by and large can't name their children's doctor. Society does cartwheels for men who do the very *basics* of parenting, as if that's just fine and dandy and all that their kids and partners need from them. Yeah, their conduct might be a great improvement on prior generations- that doesn't mean it's good enough.

As the article mentions, the majority of domestic chores, childrearing and homemaking still fall to the woman in most relationships. That is a huge problem that does need to be addressed. But allowing men to continue to escape from responsibility is not the way it should be remedied, and that is exactly what bringing in a nanny as second wife would do.

There are some really great men out there who do things around the house and help with the kids. Most, however, do not. If you are in the former group, then of course my remarks are not directed at you, so please spare me the you're just male bashing responses. But if you are in the latter group, then yes, I just might be bashing you. And that would apply to the rarer family situation in which the woman/mother is the one wholly divorced from responsibilities as well.

One one of the web sites out there about the more then wife issue had an old book on-line. Written in the days when morminizim(Sorry, can't spell worth crap) pretty much demanded men have more then one wife.

THe book pretty much ended the thought of 'more hands to do the work.' From reading the book, it sounds like the houses were messier, the men were not as well 'taken care of' and the family had a lot of bickering. Basicly, since the place belonged to ALL the women and all the women took turns at the chores, etc... None of them felt ownership over the home, etc. Nothing to take 'pride' in, you could say.

The women ended up sounding like a bunch of children. "Oh, that is XXX's job today."

The problem as I seen it, the idea was dumped on the women and they HAD to take it.
When reading about the 'many wives' of the old days, women were raised differently. Less expectations, one could say. They made up rules to follow on 'who is the boss', 'the Ruling Female". Wither that be just being the first one married, first to give birth, first to give birth to a MALE child, etc.

In this womans case, I have to ask if she seriously thinking about EVERYTHING. A 'stay at home wife' will take her life pride in the home. Which means the HOME will be her domain. SHE will rule the home. Feet on the table? Only if she is cool with it. Eat in the living room? Only if SHE is cool with it.

If she takes over the raising the children, the same thing will happen. What doctor they see, what is agreed to, dealings with teachers, sports, education, etc. The parent 'on the spot' is the one who decides these things. Eventualy, the children will go to that parent for just about everything. Cause that is the parent all ready involved in the situation.

I don't care if she decides to do this. She just better think, and I do mean THINK before she involves a theird person. It isn't fair to that person if she comes in, then is treated ONLY as a unpaid servent. THAT will not work.