Oh, I don’t think they’re brainwashed or coerced, I think they chose this of their own free will. But just because a woman participates in something of her own free will doesn’t mean it isn’t misogynist, anti-feminist crap. The definition of a feminist choice isn’t “whatever choice a woman wants to make.”
I would not say all. But, worldwide, most. I would say that “most” women who choose prostitution, “freely” choose between it and dying. That’s a very intelligent choice if you ask me. I would not call it a “free” choice, which implies you can choose not to and still be able to live.
Pardon me… you realize that you are asserting that any and all women raised as Mormons are not capable and can never BE capable of making a reasoned and informed decision to enter freely into plural marriage, right?
If that’s not what you meant, you need to clear it up. The Brown wives were not all raised in closed polygamous communities, you know, and the fourth wife, as I’ve pointed out, was previously in a monogamous marriage. Are you saying she was not capable? That as a divorced woman in her thirties with three children she had no ability to make a different choice? Because that makes no sense at all, you know.
Okay. So what? It’s not what I’m talking about.
Your’e very fond of cites. Do you have any for this assertion, apart from a reviewer’s inability to believe the show is accurate?
Got any cites for any of your assertions about this particular family? Because what you’re saying doesn’t match the cites you’ve named and doesn’t match anything else I’ve found.
Not all Mormons are repressive religious fanatics. Nor is it correct to assert that all LDS followers who agree with the idea of plural marriage are de facto repressive fanatics.
I’m loathe to admit I don’t understand why not.
I’ve seen all the episodes for the trainwreck factor. I agree with this analysis. Kody’s a jerk. His wives appear unhappy and his kids largely ignored. Not exactly a recipe for effective a functional family structure.
Then what is it? “Whatever choice self-appointed arbiters of politically correct feminists approve of”?
Because the fact that a woman put herself in a position where she lacks power doesn’t mean she doesn’t lack it. He holds the cards. Sure, the women were the ones who put the cards in his hand, but they’re still standing there without any. And the SOLE REASON they state for why he holds the cards and they don’t is because he’s a man, and they’re women. Anti-feminist, misogynist crap.
Well, if that’s the definition then most work isn’t a choice.
I’m the least politically correct feminist you’ll probably ever come across, FYI.
Well what the fuck do you think slavery is? A geological formation? If people didn’t support it it wouldn’t exist.
HUH???
Choosing to hand over your power is a completely valid choice! If you choose to give it up, you can choose to take it back. That you would find such a choice distasteful doesn’t invalidate it.
Nor does choosing to hand over your power mean misogyny and anti-feminism. The essence of feminism and sexual equality is the ability to choose, whether it’s a woman’s choice to stay at home and raise kids, or become a firefighter, or a man’s choice to stay at home and raise kids. A world free of sexism would be a world that permits and respects the choices of the individual, no matter their sex or gender, no matter the choice.
And I doubt the people who support it would ever honestly think or assert that it’s chosen, no matter how much it works for them. Especially since that pretty much undermines the very definition of slavery. (Except among the select group who choose it as a sexual lifestyle…kinky bunch, those.)
Well, since you haven’t given any evidence for that by your contributions in this thread, I’d be very much interested in knowing how you define both feminism and political correctness.
:rolleyes: You ever heard of human trafficking? I mean “prostitution and DEATH” not “prostitution and having to visit the food bank or go on welfare for a few months.”
I didn’t say it wasn’t a valid choice, I said it was a misogynistic, anti-feminist choice.
I do not believe the essence of feminism and sexual equality is for women to choose to subjugate themselves to men. I think women should have the right to do so if they choose, but it is not a feminist choice.
On further thought…
IMO, the essence of feminism is women having power in society equal to men. Women voluntarily giving up their power TO men is not a feminist choice. It reinforces societal attitudes about gender roles, and robs other women of power. This is not feminism.
I also support Michelle Duggar’s right to live her lifestyle as well, but she ain’t making feminist choices, either.
Oh, and on further further thought…
I didn’t answer your question about political correctness. In my view, political correctness is framing an argument or statement in a way that attempts not to offend anyone. I don’t think the statements I’ve made here re: feminism are designed not to offend, and in fact I’m afraid I’m bound to offend someone by what I’m saying…even myself. So, no, I don’t think I’m being politically correct.
No, I said nothing of the sort. **The Browns are NOT Mormons. ** They are members of Apostolic United Brethren - Wikipedia
which is a repressive religious fanatic cult, related to the "Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints". The mainstream Mormon Church, aka The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) loudly disavow this cult, and have stated often and publicly that they do not support Polygamy and that Polygamy is grounds for excommunication "…, church president Joseph F. Smith issued a “Second Manifesto” in 1904 which reaffirmed the church’s opposition to the creation of new plural marriages and threatened excommunication for Latter-day Saints who continued to enter into or solemnize new plural marriages."
No, actually all the Brown wives were raised in that repressive religious fanatic culture “From LA Times review: “…*All three of the women were raised either in or surrounded by polygamist families *” and as for the new wife” Robyn, … explains that although she grew up in a polygamist family…. Apparently one of the wives- Janelle- was not part of a Poly family, but was raised in that cult and culture. Not every family in that cult is poly.
Although I disagree strongly with the anti-gay marriage position of the mainstream Mormon Church, aka The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), and I would say that that policy is “repressive”, I agree- not all Mormons are repressive religious fanatics (none of the ones I know are).
But the Browns are NOT part of the Mormon Church, aka The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), and they ARE repressive religious fanatics. All of the members of the “Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” and their associated cults are repressive religious fanatics. That’s the Law of that cult. That is* required *of them. Yes, I do assert that the women in that cult are not capable of making a reasoned and informed decision to enter freely into plural marriage. But they are not Mormons, either.
Now of the “reasoned and informed decision to enter freely into plural marriage” poly families I do know, about 1/3 are two men, one woman. Note that this relationship does not and can not exist in the “Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”, thus no member of that Church has a choice. *"The FLDS Church teaches the doctrine of plural marriage, which states that a man having multiple wives is ordained by God; the doctrine requires it in order for a man to receive the highest form of salvation. It is generally believed in the church that a man should have a minimum of three wives to fulfill this requirement.[61] Connected with this doctrine is patriarchal doctrine, the belief that wives are required to be subordinate to their husbands.
The church currently practices placement marriage, whereby a young woman of marriageable age is assigned a husband by revelation from God to the leader of the church, who is regarded as a prophet.[62] The prophet elects to take and give wives to and from men according to their worthiness. This is also called the law of placing." *Where’s the “reasoned and informed decision to enter freely into plural marriage” there?
But you didn’t see it for yourself. You said that you had a friend who grew up in it. So you have one person’s experience as he relates it to you.
Then why are you using TLC’s show as an example to support your hypothesis?
I’m neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you Diogenes. I’m just pointing out that you’re being contradictory and hypocritical in your arguments.
Evolutionary Anthropologist here. Humans are a species that tends towards serial monogamy. We, like many species of birds are primarily pair-bonded. Although polygamy has been allowed (primarily polygyny), the vast majority of us have been married monogamously, and polygyny is an extremely dangerous system that causes higher rates of violence and women to be treated as objects.
There are plenty of species that are monogamous, including apes (gibbons, titi monkeys).
The most common form of polygyny, where it is allowed, is for a very few men to have multiple wives and the vast majority to be married monogamously. Widespread polygyny is not widely practiced because the surplus males must be killed or removed from the society somehow.
Wikipedia:
Furthermore, based on our physiology, we are a species that tends towards monogamy. Our level of sexual dimorphism is less than what would be expected based upon our size, and our testes are small, which suggests that we don’t engage in a lot of sperm competition (although we do engage in a moderate amount).
Although there are societies with no marriages, societies where women are encouraged to have extrapair copulations, and societies where only a few men are allowed to have access to all the females, the majority of individuals across cultures practice serial monogamy.