I don’t know what you think I’ve asserted that I’m right about in spite of evidence. I haven’t discounted evidence that repressive, patriarchal religious fanatics are fucked up, they are. But no one has shown any evidence that the reason they are fucked up is because they practice plural marriage. I’m not even sure anyone has even tried to assert that, they’ve simply trotted out examples of how fucked up these societies are and left it to the readers to conclude “people + plural marriage = fucked up repressive fanatics that repress women and rape girls” and variations on that theme.
Most people have grudgingly allowed that there might be a few scattered souls in the world who can pull it off before rushing back to pointing out how fucked up the repressive religious fanatics are, and that’s all I’ve said.
Well, my exposure to this family thus far convinces me that they are perfectly acceptable examples of people for whom this lifestyle works, and the fact that they are unhappy sometimes won’t dissuade me…if they weren’t I’d be much more suspicious of them, since I don’t know of ANY relationship that is just peachy in every respect all the time. If they aren’t convincing for you, that’s fine…at least you allow for the fact that someone somewhere is happily “plural”.
And you have a right to ALL your beliefs, whatever they are!
In my case, I don’t believe that anyone’s individual life choices are ever bad for all “kind”, whatever their sex. Which actually comes around to the whole “politcially correct” issue: lots of women seem to be of the opinion that other women’s choices to volunteer to be sexual objects (Playboy, porn, stripping, whatever) undermines their choice not to be, because (if I recall the reasoning correctly) if men are exposed to some women who are sex objects, they will be led to the belief that they can treat all women as sex objects, therefore it is incumbent upon all women to refrain from volunteering in order to protect the women who do not wish to be seen or treated as sex objects.
This is an example of what I consider a steaming pile of horseshit that I refuse to support.
Yeah, but again: you haven’t watched the show. I’ll agree that he didn’t seem like a dick on Oprah,but the key here is that you haven’t watched their show. If you haven’t watched their show, you really can’t speak to the good or bad of their relationship. Not that I’m pretending the show is the end all, be all reality of it all- but it paints a much broader picture than the hour on Oprah did. You would know this if you watched the show.
Giving away one’s power is not binary. We all do it throughout our lives to varying degrees with different people in different situations, and we give it and take it back in a fairly constant exchange.
I think it can’t be denied that individual life choices can be bad for all “kind.” For instance, the more women who bail on careers to have children, the fewer women there are in positions of power and influence, the more the perception of the public is that women don’t care about careers, don’t deserve promotions, are likely to have children and quit, etc. You can argue tough shit, an individual’s personal choice ultimately trumps societal concerns, but to say that there’s no negative effect is simply wrong.
I think it’s a little disingenuous to say that these brainwashed automotons are “making their own choice” when they’ve been religiously programmed to think it’s the only moral choice, but even if they were making some kind of informed, feminist choice to be servants of this slimeball, the issue was not about what women should be allowed to choose. I dn’t give a fuck what women choose. The issue was about whether it’s a good environment for raising children. Obviously it’s nothing close. you don’t teach children that women are not equal to men. Period.
Most married people report self-report being happy with monogamy, by the way, so enough of this canard that monogamous people are miserable. That’s complete bullshit. When they’re unhappy, it isn’t because they’re monogomous, but because they’re monogomous with the wrong person.
Yeah, I can’t disagree with Diogenes on the raising kids thing. Somewhere in this thread I said that I think it’s complete BS to raise children in a house where women are second-class citizens, and considering that’s the main point of the OP, I think I should stress this point as well.
Oh! Ok. You have a problem with religion, since it teaches children that women are not equal to men. I got you now. Makes sense, I have a problem with religion too.
All sarcasm aside, I completely agree that the religion aspect makes it hard to tell if these women are brainwashed or not. So I can’t really speak on the show. But, if some women decided, outside of any god reasons, to marry a man with many wives, I wouldn’t knock it. The married people I know ‘self report’ to me that they are fucking miserable a whole lot of the time. Sorry. Just my own personal experience with a lot of married folks I know who are in traditional marriages.
I do not have a problm with religion. My wife is religious. I send my kids to a catholic school. Religion per se, is not my objection. My objection is raising children in an environment where women don’t have the same rights as men. These particular women have been brainwashed since birth by a particular religion to believe that they have a duty to be slaves to men. This makes the assertion that their choice is informed more than a little suspect, but my real issue is with them coninuing to pass on that cycle of brainwashing to their own kids.
Yeah, I just can’t stress enough that this particular family, in this particular religion, is raising their children with the idea that women are second-class citizens by God’s own decree. This isn’t a general statement on religion or non-monogamous arrangements or anything else. These people that Stoid has held up as examples of a fine system for parenting have a very, very unhealthy environment for their children. Which is obvious once you get past the first episode of the show.
Understood. I shouldn’t come off as if I have this all figured out. I have been watching the show with interest, trying to work out my opinions about it. I do know that as of now, *I strongly believe in a grown woman being able to think her way through her own decisions, *and I do strongly believe that many non traditional families including polygamy can work out. But I am fuzzy as hell on this show and am still learning and watching and reading and wondering.
If your contention is that it’s fake and that we shouldn’t use those shows to prove a point, then you can’t turn around use those shows to prove a point.
Jsut so we’re clear…all religious teaching is programming that takes away the ability to think for oneself, right?
If not, please clarify why THESE particular women, all four of them, have been brainwashed into this thinking.
Did you ever come up with any cites for all the things you know for sure about these people, by the way?
Is that what they’re teaching them? Do you know that’s true, or are you assuming?
And if this is the standard for what makes a good environment, I think we need to staff up children’s services and start raiding tens of thousands…millions of homes where it’s taught that men rule and women serve, with no polygamy anywhere in sight.
You are mixing and matching and getting very confused.
Boatloads of people in monogamous relationships are, in fact, miserable.
And absolutely no one (that I saw, please point it out if I missed it) in this thread has even come close to asserting that monogamy is cause for the misery.
Just the slightest bit of careful attention would prevent a lot of this sort of error…
And I’m looking forward to seeing all the misery in this show, and seeing how much of it is plainly peculiar to the plural marriage aspect of these people’s lives, vs. garden-variety relationship crap that just happens to be multiplied.
On the show (which you have yet to watch), the family (which you have held up as the model for this discussion) sure comes across that way. The folks who have watched the show in this thread all seem to generally be in agreement with that point.