Married and Looking: Thank God for Polygamy in Canada

March 3, 2010

Monogamy for the benifit of women?

Filed under: Anti Monogamy — prariepolyguy @ 5:01 am
Tags: , ,

Probably the most irritating thing to me when I read about things against polygamy is the constant assumption that monogamy is better for women or somehow in womens best interests. Are people really so naive to think that monogamy and womens lib went hand in hand or had anything to do with each other? Monogamy was not implemented for the benefit of women, why is there so much talk as if it was? Weather we trace it to Roman Law to prevent too many full citizens or popular early gnosticism that viewed sex and marriage as of the devil or slightly better than hellfire we don’t have a woman friendly policy.

In the 300’s we see monogamy mandated for clergy. In the 600’s we have it for everyone, and in the same century we have the view that women are not even to touch the altar and that the Eucharist was too holy to be touched by a woman’s bare hands, she had to wear white linen gloves. We hardly have time where monogamy would be established for womens sake. Even up to the 1700’s we have writing on how monogamy hurts women, its only in the last century that its been seen as something for them or for their benefit.

Even in more recent history we have monogamy working directly against women. Among the Mormons we have Martha Hughes Cannon, the first woman in any state senate in the States. She was the wife of a polygamist. We have women gaining the right to vote in Utah in 1870, then that right being taken away in 1887 by the Edmunds-Tucker antipolygamy act. That’s right, women lost the right to vote in an antipolygamy act… It took them 8 years to get it back. Monogamy once again is against women, its simply not to their benefit, its to mens benefit. Frankly most men prefer girlfreinds, mistresses, or worse than wives. They certainly don’t want to be outnumbered by wives, it becomes much harder to promote total top down control of women.

To whit many would respond that polygamy usually practiced with that kind of control in our time. Well, yeah, but its because in deeply Islamic countries the law directly opposes women. Women aren’t kept down by the family but by society at large. Without the law backing him the husband doesn’t have total top down power in polygamy, he has less power since he loses the strength advantage and he has more views and reasons to consider.

Put it this way, in monogamy if a man is head of the house and has veto power, any split vote is 1:1, his veto power wins, he is an automatic dictator. In a house of a husband and 3 wives you have much more of a republic, the man as head of house might resolve 2:2 votes but he ought to hesitate if there is a 1:3 vote against him. He should believe his wives to be intelligent and responsible and realize that he would be leading the family into trouble by ignoring their council.

If a man is abusive is he really going to have a use for polygamy? 2:1, even though men are much stronger than women if they support each other he is in trouble.

The only way polygamy goes wrong is if laws or culture prevent women for standing up for themselves. At present thats what polygamists cultures in the medias limelight either actually do or are accused of doing.



  1. What an interesting milieu of propositions.

    The reality of most polygamous societies being functionally monogamous, polygamy being allowed but rare, kneecaps the underlining assumptions of necessary aggression nicely wouldn’t you say?

    Your article is dull. The analysis of early Mormonism is a case where polygamy is idealized and nearly mandated, it’s data isn’t applicable to any other polygamous society I’ve heard of. It’s filed it’s implications under evidence based on that, and even then assumed implications are not evidence proper.

    Their further assumptions, also listed under evidence, is also fantasy world tier make believe monogamy. In their model 20:20=1:1. In reality under monogamy the top men still get extra women as mistresses or girlfriends and the bottom men are still shut out. The only tangible difference is, as my article talks about, with polygamy these relationships are regulated and protected where in monogamy they’re are illicit and all the power is with the man as the woman has no formal protections. They even point out the difference between marriage norms and actual mating habits and still miss that this marriage norm being followed exactly is utterly unrealistic for humans.

    Where historically Polygamous cultures are usually under 10% polygamous which is far, far lower than their made out of nowhere 25% that’s so problematic. Next they assume a gender balance, which we achieve today globally because Chinese and Indians actively abort daughters with a strong preference and we have relative peace under a nuclear pax. Furthermore monogamy does not at all equate to absence of war, war is normative of human societies at large and that leads to a gender imbalance with more women then men. To insinuate that monogamous cultures are per se peaceful makes me think you should re-think your ‘infowarrior’ moniker…

    Given male shortage is in fact normative for the world (Humanities largest populations don’t actively opt to kill daughters and wars as normal are happening without some kind of pax) monogamy creates low-value women problems that somewhat mirror low-value men problems, though are naturally not identical.

    Hostly, vet your articles better before posting them. A cursory skim of the rest of it has face-palm worthy ‘age of first marriage’ differences as evidence for women oppression, as if an average marriage age of 25 was not a by-product of the education system in the West and as if it was normative for monogamous societies historically which it obviously is not. Average age of first marriage being anything close to that is a very recent phenomena.

    And they cite Greece and Rome as if they where monogamous by standards which matter here, and say nothing more about it.

    Here is one of three volumes on polygamy’s harm to women. They’re actually pretty interesting and not word-salad tier pseudoacedemia. Or perhaps the article you posted is what actual academia is reduced to nowadays?

    Comment by prariepolyguy — December 30, 2015 @ 1:20 pm

  2. Here is a paper done on this topic:

    Comment by infowarrior1 — December 28, 2015 @ 7:36 pm

  3. ”War creates mate shortages for women”

    ”If you’re talking simply about modern day then I don’t see why I shouldn’t hand-wave it off as middle eastern problems that go hand in hand with much deeper cultural and social and geopolitical issues.”

    Polygynous people like the Muslims,Africans and ancient nomadic peoples went to war against neighbouring peoples because of polygyny in the 1st place of which they poach women and resources from their neighbors.

    Its not coincidence that cultures such as these often have bloody borders and constantly raid other peoples for mates and resources.

    Comment by infowarrior1 — December 28, 2015 @ 7:33 pm

  4. War creates mate shortages for women. Polgyny can balance that.

    Merely allowing polygyny only follows that some men will take multiple women in a gender-balance situation, but we already do this informally within monogamy so it just formalized and protects women who would be legally defenceless mistresses or girlfreinds right now.

    The later assertion is touchier. I don’t know weather the Arab or Ottoman empires at their height where internally more crime-riddled or violent than the British or Spanish. I expect not.

    If you’re talking simply about modern day then I don’t see why I shouldn’t hand-wave it off as middle eastern problems that go hand in hand with much deeper cultural and social and geopolitical issues.

    Comment by prariepolyguy — December 28, 2015 @ 2:35 pm

  5. Polygamy create mate shortages for men. Regions where polygamy is implemented are more crime-ridden and violent than monogamous societies.

    Comment by infowarrior1 — December 28, 2015 @ 1:38 am

  6. Cool

    Comment by prariepolyguy — July 27, 2011 @ 9:31 pm

  7. […] found this post here and just had to copy it to my blog. It’s pretty good and it brought up some ideas I […]

    Pingback by Monogamy for the ben[e]fit of women? | — July 27, 2011 @ 3:50 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: