Polygamy that involves child abuse - Holmes, Randman, CS?

And your issue is as equally irrational as the others.If your problem is with someone being in a relationship against their will, then focus on a solution that helps to prevent people being in relationships against their will.We have plenty of two-people marriages today where the male considers himself the "dominant" member. You don't have a problem with that?Of course you do. But does it make you say "well, we shouldn't allow marriage, then"? No? Why not? Because it has nothing to do with it.If abuse is a problem, focus on fixing abuse.Polygamy is not the only place where abuse occurs.Preventing polygamy in order to prevent abuse is like preventing ID from being taught in science class in order to prevent children from being taught "the controversy".Beneficial goal, but horribly wrong and irrational reasoning. We prevent teaching "the controversy" because there is no controversy. There is no reason to prevent polygamy. Preventing abuse is another issue that is only brought up to cloud rational judgement.

What do you mean "may be"? I live in the middle of this stuff, Stile: the abuse rate in polygamous families is much higher than the abuse rate in monogamous families (not to mention brainwashing, conspiracy and rebellion). What does that tell you? Maybe it's just abusive people who like polygamy, but it may also be that polygamy broods abusiveness (imagine how uptight and short-fused you'd be if you had to take care of seven wives ). Either way, there's a problem, and it is related to polygamy.Now, I concede the point to you that polygamy itself isn't the problem. But, at least from my unprofessional standpoint, it seems to exacerbate the problem. And, since we're not so good at handling abuse by itself, the last thing we need is another confounding factor. If we ever get to the point where we have a good system for dealing with abuse, maybe then we could try to open the field a bit and work with this. But, as of right now, we're not ready for it, and it's only going to cause more legal and social problems and judicial headaches.

---

I'm BluejayDarwin loves you.

What are you trying to underpin? That this girl was being abused? I totally agree.How does this have anything to do with polygamy and if it should be allowed or not?For all we know, this same girl wasn't even in a polygamous relationship. I don't think that information was included in the article. I may be wrong, though... Again, I totally agree. I also think the government's actions were completely appropriate. Appropriate because of the abuse, not because of the polygamy.And, I agree that there have been too many complaints about the FLDS. Perhaps, the government should look into the FLDS a little more and see if it should be interfering with the FLDS any more. I see no reason why the government should look into polygamy or restrict polygamy for any reason just because the FLDS is causing problems. I don't think the FLDS' problems are with polygamy, I think it's with their hiding from society.Again, looking into the FLDS for other abusive actions has nothing to do with polygamy.

So let's see.-you concede that polygamy itself is not the problem
-you understand we're not good at handling abuse
-you think we should, one day, strive to reach a point where we can have a good system for handling abuseAnd your solution to this problem is to ignore abuse, not propose any solution to preventing abuse, to continue with "fix the symptom, not the problem" actions, and you want me to consider you rational?Why can't we work to fix abuse today?
Why can't we come up with ideas to focus on abuse today?
Why are we putting of dealing with abuse?
Why can't we work towards having a good system for handling abuse today?Like I said, we should do the following:1. Legalize polygamy.
2. Increase police presence (or other more-suited authority figures) in areas where abuse is known to be a problem (like FLDS societies).
3. Increase education in areas of personal rights and freedoms so people know who to contact and where to go if/when they're being abused.
4. Increase social caring system for victims of abuse.But your course of option is to ignore the abuse, don't do anything about the abuse, and stop the polygamy... which is only 1 area where abuse is in our society.Is it simply because this area of abuse was put in the news? Is that what's driving your narrow vision? Fix this area, get it out of the news, and then we can all go back to our happy little lives? Of course, the people still being abused in non-polygamous relationships aren't helped by your solution at all.

That's right, I take it you agree with me on these three points? Where the hell did you get this from? When did I say "ignore abuse"? And, since when is polygamy a symptom of abuse? You're arguing a strawman!My suggestion was that we eliminate a probably-exacerbating factor, then focus on dealing with the problem in "normal" situations. I said nothing about how we should deal with it: I'm no sociologist, after all. Only when we've figured out how to deal with it by itself can we figure out how to deal with it in the presence of confounding factors. It was a "milk before meat" argument.And, I never argued with your points 2-4: those are very good suggestions. But, legalizing polygamy is not the answer, nor will it help us come to an answer any more quickly. In fact, it will make it much more difficult for us to come to an answer.Edited by Thylacosmilus, : Accidentally clicked "send" in the middle of editing.

---

I'm BluejayDarwin loves you.

Heh, sorry, I got a bit carried away there. Caught up in some sort of preacher-mode. Didn't mean to get so my-way-or-the-highway like. I don't think you ever said the words "ignore abuse". But we have two issues, the issue of polygamy and the issue of abuse. Your offered course of action (or inaction, I suppose) of not legalizing polygamy. Since you didn't say anything about stopping the abuse, I assumed you were ignoring it. I can't read your mind, only what you post. But yes, if you do agree with my actions on abuse (or something similar, anyway, I'm in no way an expert on government workings) I'll no longer imply that you're ignoring abuse. Quite possibly. I only got it from your words, though:

quote:

---

Stile: the abuse rate in polygamous families is much higher than the abuse rate in monogamous families (not to mention brainwashing, conspiracy and rebellion). What does that tell you? Maybe it's just abusive people who like polygamy, but it may also be that polygamy broods abusiveness (imagine how uptight and short-fused you'd be if you had to take care of seven wives ). Either way, there's a problem, and it is related to polygamy.

---

You say: "there's a problem, and it is related to polygamy".
To me, polygamy is a symptom, but not the problem. Abuse is the problem. If you want to say that polygamy IS the problem, you'll have to do better then a bunch of maybe's. You keep saying this. Can you show how polygamy is actually exacerbating the problem of abuse? For example, you agreed with these:2. Increase police presence (or other more-suited authority figures) in areas where abuse is known to be a problem (like FLDS societies).
3. Increase education in areas of personal rights and freedoms so people know who to contact and where to go if/when they're being abused.
4. Increase social caring system for victims of abuse.None of that has anything to do with polygamy.How will keeping polygamy illegal help the execution of any of these points in any way?How will legalizing polygamy hinder the execution of any of these points in any way?I really don't see how the two are related.

Why is my "issue" irrational? I'm talking about real World situations...not a plan on paper. Like I said, in a perfect World, I have no problems with polygyny. But why are we only discussing polygyny and not polyandry? Well, if a man fucks lots of women, he's a stud. If a woman fucks lots of men, she's a slut. In the real (human) World, polygyny is the polygamous style of choice. Why? Because it's dominated by men. How many women to you truly believe want to have a polygynous relationship? Honestly, I have no idea...but I'll bet it's far fewer than the number that are actually in a polygynous relationship. It seems like a "perfect storm" for abusing the system, as well as many women. Preventing polygyny is preventing an easy way to systematically abuse women. Look, even you said that there is plenty of abuse in monogamous relationships, so why add another level? A level that would be easy to abuse.
If there's a realistic way to assure that ALL parties in the relationship want to be in such a relationship, then like I said earlier...I have no problems. I just don't think that we have the capabilities to assure that each member wants it to be as so. Like Thylacosmilus pointed out...even your "simple" solution of just getting a divorce is often times, not so simple. And I disagree with this premise. While, in regards to preventing the teaching of ID, you are correct in asserting the there is no controversy, I think your logic is flawed by conflating that with allowing polygyny. As we can clearly see by the situation in Texas, there is plenty of abuse in polygyny.

Hi jay, Why not go back to doing it the old fashioned way?Take the abusive person out to the city limits and stone them to death.I know a little drastic.I had a teacher in elementary school that had a drinking abusive husband. He came in drunk one night and started shooting at everybody with a 22 rifle. Everyone escaped as he was too drunk to aim the rifle. When he went to sleep she rolled him up and sewed him in the sheet. When he woke up and begin fussing she got the baseball bat and beat him unmercifully. When she got tired of beating on him she cut the sheet treated his wounds. Then she told him, "the next time you come in drunk and beat on us, I will kill you". He must have believed her because until he died some 15 years later he never drank another drop or raised his hand to hurt her or any of the children.That might have been drastic but she never had to try to explain to some 3rd grade student why she had a black eye or other bruises.Back to present day reality.To solve the problem we would have to have specific laws with specific consequences for breaking them.There could be no exceptions religious or otherwise.The first order of business would be to triple the hotel rooms in our prisons. Or impose the death penalty.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I suppose my point is that I don't think this is true. Like this:There are men who abuse women. (I agree)
Men who are in polygamous relationships (polygyny even moreso) often abuse women. (I agree)
Preventing polygamous relationships will therefore prevent these men from abusing women. (I don't agree)Do you seriously think that outlawing polygamy will actually prevent these men from abusing women?"Oh, I can't be in a government-legal polygamous relationship, I suppose I should re-think how I treat women in general and become a better person".You know this isn't going to happen. You know these men will simply abuse women the same way they've always been doing. Through fear, through lack-of authority presence, through lack of their victims' education in their rights, through lack of social care systems.Preventing polygamy doesn't help prevent abuse now.
Removing polygamy prevention is not going to "help" any abusers."Oh, I can legally get in a polygamous relationship. Now I can start abusing women!"You know this isn't going to happen either.Preventing polygamy does not reduce abuse of women in any way.
Preventing polygamy simply reduces the abuse of women by men who are in a polygamous relationship.
Preventing polygamy simply increases the abuse of women by men who are not in a polygamous relationship.Being polygamous does not make a man abuse women.Being an asshat makes a man abuse women.Preventing polygamy does not prevent men from being asshats.I'll ask you the same questions I asked Thy... Thylasci... Bluejay:2. Increase police presence (or other more-suited authority figures) in areas where abuse is known to be a problem (like FLDS societies).
3. Increase education in areas of personal rights and freedoms so people know who to contact and where to go if/when they're being abused.
4. Increase social caring system for victims of abuse.None of that has anything to do with polygamy.How will keeping polygamy illegal help the execution of any of these points in any way?How will legalizing polygamy hinder the execution of any of these points in any way?

Overall, I'm trying hard to agree with you. Honestly. I have no problem with polygyny. To me, though, it's a matter of who wants a polygynous relationship? Well, to me the answer is, it's men that want it. Why? Because they are assholes. There, I said it...men (and I'm a happily married man that cannot even begin to imagine having two wives) are assholes. We'll fuck anything.So, while I completely agree that preventing polygyny does not, ipso facto, prevent abuse...to me, allowing polygyny will increase the amount of abuse. And I say this based solely on my opinion that those men that want a polygynous relationship are probably the type that are likely to abuse women anyway. It's a power trip. It's not about their religion. It's about being "a man" and showing those lowly women who's in charge.Right now, polygyny is illegal. I personally feel that it should remain as such, until such time that we all get together for a big ol' group hug in Kansas and finally decide to live happily together. And since I don't see that happening for quite sometime, I see no reason to allow for another level of abuse.I guess I'm trying to say that in the real World, polygyny will always be a system ripe for abuse. It's not polygyny itself...it's those that want to participate in the system, as it is now. As it is being practiced now. I mean, these women are "told" that if they leave, there will be severe consequences. And I now that you say that THAT is what we need to work on fixing. And while I agree, I also know that it will not happen. Again, I'm talking about the real World here. I mean, has our system stopped abuse of women yet, even those involved in monogamous relationships? No.Anyway, I'm starting to just ramble on and on, so I'll stop.

Me too I guess we have different visions of the real world.I agree that preventing polygamy in order to prevent abuse would have a point, IF you can show one of the following:1. Polygamy is one of, say, less then 10 areas where "abusers of women" are capable of hiding.
2. Abuse of women coming from polygamous relationships is, say, 10% of all abuse of women cases.If you can show how either of those cases are true, then I agree you have a point where preventing polygamy will help to prevent abuse.In the real world that I have experience of, however:1. Men who abuse women hide in hundreds of thousands of areas (possibly millions?) of today's society. Removing 1 of those areas will have NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER on the amount of women being abused.
2. Out of all men who abuse women, I'd guess that very few of those men are actually in a polygamous relationship. And, again, if we remove that polygamous relationship, those men will continue to abuse women. Again, this has NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER on the amount of women being abused. Again, I just don't see it. With hundreds of thousands (millions?) of areas in our society where men can hide their abuse of women, adding one more will have NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER on the amount of women being abused.To prohibit polygamy under the guise of protecting people from abuse is to prohibit a huge right of human choice (who they spend their lives with) in order to effectively protect 0 people. Those people will just end up still getting abused through the millions of other options that abusers have at their disposal.I just don't see the point of it, or the connection to any real-world case. In the real world, these people are still going to be abused, even if polygamy is prohibited.

Stile writes

quote:

---

1. Men who abuse women hide in hundreds of thousands of areas (possibly millions?) of today's society. Removing 1 of those areas will have NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER on the amount of women being abused.
2. Out of all men who abuse women, I'd guess that very few of those men are actually in a polygamous relationship. And, again, if we remove that polygamous relationship, those men will continue to abuse women. Again, this has NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER on the amount of women being abused.

---

I don't think the argument is that banning polygamy will prevent abuse of women. I think we all can agree that this is obviously false.I think what people are arguing is that polygamy does create an environment that is more favorable for abuser-wannabes to thrive, as is already demonstrated by the various fundamentalist sects mentioned. In a regular monogamous community, there is really no chance for the abuser to prevent the abused to run outside and scream bloody murder, at least not forever anyway. But in a polygamous community, I think it is a given that the male dominance attitude carries a lot of weight and that the subjugated women will more likely than not prevent the ones that want out to run out and scream bloody murder.So, essentially, the argument is that while polygamy itself is not the cause for abuse it does create an environment where abuse can thrive more than ever before.

quote:

---

Again, I just don't see it. With hundreds of thousands (millions?) of areas in our society where men can hide their abuse of women, adding one more will have NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER on the amount of women being abused.

---

I don't think the argument you are going against is that there is no other sector of society that is abusive to women. What the argument entails is that polygamy does seem to create an environment that could allow abuse of women to thrive, and perhaps even promote abuse. After all, polygamy does generally revolves around the male dominance role, and what do we know about this particularly from historical references? As the old saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Yeah, me too: I apologize for posting when I was felling "particularly impassioned". And, I swore: I don't usually do that (except recently on this forum, for some reason). I never thought of it like this before: polygamy is the result of abuse? I don't quite understand that. I don't think this is a very good question: the points aren't the goal, they're the means--this question is the same as asking "how will increasing police forces increase the social caring system?" My contention is that learning how to deal with abuse and offenders is hard: adding this other exacerbating factor will only make it harder.{AbE: I'm not so sure it's the point that the men are necessarily being bad. I think abuse is in the eye of the beholder. In order words, it's what the abusee thinks about it. If women think they're being abused, either they have a mental problem or whatever their partner is doing should not be going on (there are obvious exceptions to this).} No, I can't, but I can show a paper or two that supports it to some degree. This is an article I read recently about polygamy in Arab communities. The reference is provided below (Al-Krenawi and Lev-Wiesel).It consists of a survey of Arabic wives--in polygamous and monogamous marriages--with questions about abuse. There's a nice table (Table 2) that highlights the questions from the survey which showed significant differences between the two groups, but I won't reprint it here (for copyright reasons). Here's the abstract:

quote:

---

ABSTRACT. This study compared the phenomenon of wife abuse in
polygamous and monogamous Bedouin-Arab families. A sample of 81
women participated in the present study-40 were from polygamous and
41 were from monogamous families. The instruments administered examined
three dimensions: Demographic variables, sense of personal potency
(as assessed by the Potency Scale: Ben-Sira, 1985) and experience
of abusive behavior (as assessed by the Psychological Maltreatment of
Women Inventory: Tolman, 1995, 1989). Results indicated higher levels of
potency and lower levels of wife abuse among monogamous as compared to
polygamous wives. These findings are discussed in the context of women’s
sense of personal potency.

---

I did another search in response to your inquiry, and I came up with this (Hassouneh-Phillips, below):

quote:

---

Improving health outcomes for abused women requires that service
providers know how to intervene with women from diverse cultural
backgrounds living in a variety of family structures. Because little is
known about the growing and diverse American Muslim population,
the investigator examined the lived experiences of abused American
Muslim women. Using an adaptation of interpretive phenomenology,
data were collected from 17 American Muslim women from diverse
ethnic backgrounds. Findings highlighted in this article examine the
significance of polygamy in shaping American Muslim women’s experiences
of abuse and describe the ways that polygamy and abuse
can sometimes be interwoven phenomena.

---

I haven't read it yet, but I thought I'd give you a fair chance at it, too. It sounds like it might contradict some of what Al-Krenawi and Lev-Wiesel were saying, though (judging by the database commentary on it). I wasn't able to find any scholarly articles on polygamy in cultures other than Islam, so I don't know how well these results will translate over. From what I've seen and heard around here (Utah), though, it's probably not far off.{AbE: What I'm seeing from these papers is that women in polygamous marriages generally feel more abused than women in monogamous marriages.}References:Al-Krenawi, A. and R Lev-Wiesel. (2002). Wife abuse among polygamous and monogamous Bedouin-Arab families. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage Vol. 36(3): 151-165.Hassouneh-Phillips, D. (2001). Polygamy and wife abuse: A qualitative study of Muslim women in America. Health Care For Women International 22:735-748.Edited by Thylacosmilus, : Additions

---

I'm BluejayDarwin loves you.

Yeah. At least your heart's in the right place. Every once in awhile, I wish we had a system where people who abuse certain human rights lose those rights themselves, just so they understand why it's bad. However, I don't think, in reality, I could sanction (or even stomach) the notion of public abuse as a punishment for personal abuse.

---

I'm BluejayDarwin loves you.

No. I'm thinking polygamy is a symptom of abuse in the same was that sneezing is a symptom of having a cold.If you sneeze, you may have a cold.
If there is polygamy, you may have abuse.There are many situations where you sneeze, but you don't have a cold.
There are many situations where polygamy exists, but you don't have abuse.Sneezing does not cause colds.
Polygamy does not cause abuse.Preventing sneezing is not going to help at all in preventing colds.
Preventing polygamy is not going to help at all in preventing abuse.It's a symptom, not the problem. Fix the problem, not the symptom. But, you admit you can't show this: ..only show a paper or two that might lend it some support.Do you really think that depriving people from a very high-priority right (the right to live their lives with the people they love) is worth the minimal impact you're getting from maybe having a slight imapact (and likely none at all) on abuse?