Keysar Trad has written an article in The Age today calling for Australians to reconsider their attitudes to polygyny (where a man has multiple wives). He says:
Who someone marries first is an accident of history. If a man who has an affair had met his mistress before his wife, he may have married her. Why maintain the facade that is the Justinian doctrine of monogamy knowing it has failed as a social experiment?
A man can have multiple girlfriends. Why not formalise that into a commitment for life? Why should “bigamy” be a crime?
Now, I’ve never been a great fan of Keysar Trad, as a previous post explains. I think he often ends up bringing the causes he champions into disrepute. And this article doesn’t change my opinion in that regard. The bit that really made me feel like shaking him was the part where he said:
…But in a caring and sharing world where we become euphoric when we give to those in need, sponsor orphans and provide foster care, the ultimate in giving is for a woman to give a fraction of her husband’s time and affection to another woman who is willing to share with her. It is a spiritually rewarding experience that allows women to grow while the husband toils to provide for more than one partner.
Anyway. {Deep breaths. Restore myself to calm before going on.}
I’m not quite sure what Trad’s argument is. Is he simply arguing that bigamy should be decriminalised? Or is he arguing that we should have legal mechanisms to recognise polygyny as a relationship which is equal to a monogamous marriage? The first option is a different kettle of fish to the second.
Bigamy is a criminal offence in Australia (see eg, s 64 of the Crimes Act (Vic) in my home state). Bigamy means going through a marriage ceremony with another person when one’s original spouse is still alive. Therefore, anyone who enters into a polygamous marriage in Australia is committing a crime.
As a 2006 Report for Status of Women Canada concluded, there are liberal and feminist arguments for decriminalising bigamy. The Report, entitled Expanding Recognition of Foreign Polygamous Marriages: Policy Implications for Canada is available to download at SSRN here. The Report recommended that Canada should repeal its criminal provision outlawing polygamy, but that other criminal laws and civil laws be used to combat the harms associated with polygamy. Interestingly, as this Washington Post article notes, some of those who advocate the legalisation of polygamy also advocate the legalisation of same-sex marriage, on the basis that the law should not tell people what to do in the bedroom.
In fact, polygamy and bigamy are rarely prosecuted because of the practical difficulties involved in doing so. The difficulty is that the consensus seems to be that women and children in polygamous relationships are disadvantaged, and may face abuse and other wrongs. However, prosecution for bigamy may further harm these women and children rather than fixing the problem.
Let’s stop there at the disadvantage point. We need to address a prior issue. Does polygamy necessarily result in disadvantage for women? The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) certainly takes the attitude that polygamy leads to disadvantage for women. In CEDAW General Recommendation 21, paragraph 14 states:
…Polygamous marriage contravenes a woman’s right to equality with men, and can have such serious emotional and financial consequences for her and her dependants that such marriages ought to be discouraged and prohibited. The Committee notes with concern that some States parties, whose constitutions guarantee equal rights, permit polygamous marriage in accordance with personal or customary law. This violates the constitutional rights of women, and breaches the provisions of article 5 (a) of the Convention. [emphasis added]
Many, if not most, societies practiced polygyny (one man having multiple wives) in the past. However, Western societies have generally moved to ban polygamy generally. Polyandry (one woman having many husbands) is rare, and is practiced in some parts of Tibet and India.
Polygyny has been generally associated with gender inequality. Apparently studies of polygynous societies indicate women in such societies are oppressed, threatened or disempowered. Usually only “high status” men can afford to support multiple wives and children. By the same token, usually educated and well-off women do not choose to enter into polygynous relationships. Most social scientists argue that polygamy is designed to ensure male reproductive success, and it is a result of a man’s choice, not a woman’s choice. Often subsequent wives are much younger than their husbands. In addition, subsequent wives are often lower in the pecking order than “primary wives”. Nonetheless, other social scientists argue that women are in a position to demand choice in marriage, and thus if polygyny is the practice, it must be as a result of female choice, perhaps to maximise help with child rearing or the like. In the Washington Post article I linked to above, one Mormon indicates that his wives had to work to convince him to take more than one wife, saying:
“Usually the women tend to be the biggest advocates of this way of life and men enter it more timidly. …If you are going to do it right, it’s a huge responsibility.”
So it seems to be true that some women choose to enter such a relationship freely.
In some places, polygamy has been used in place of divorce where there are limited grounds for divorce. In fact, well back in our own family tree, my mother has found a couple of instances of bigamy. Presumably, the bigamous party was not able to divorce his or her spouse, and so seems to have concealed the existence of a previous spouse in order to marry again. In one case, as far as we can work out, one of my forebears seems to have had two wives simultaneously who lived a few houses away from each other, and who both had children by him. Unless there were two men of that name living in the same street?
Social scientists have various explanations for the practice of polygamy. Multiple wives seem to be a status symbol for powerful and sexually dominant men. Some social scientists argue that once societies become more democratic, there is a “male compromise”. Wealthy, powerful men surrender polygamy in exchange for political support from poor men. This means that men now have equality of reproductive opportunity. There is a strong correlation between liberal democracy and monogamous marriage.
This brings into relief the problems of cultural relativism. There can be two feminist arguments here. What do we prioritise, gender equality or religious/cultural practice? Secular feminists, of course, tend to prioritise to gender equality, whereas multicultural/religious feminists tend to prioritise religious freedom.
The late Susan Moller Okin, a feminist author, wrote a paper entitled “Is Multiculturalism Bad For Women?” She argues that there is a tension between feminism and a multiculturalist commitment to group rights for minority cultures. This is in part because many culturally-based customs aim to control women and make women serve men’s desires and interests (especially sexually and reproductively). Okin notes that most of the “cultural defences” in the criminal law relate to men’s cultural power to control women:
- The Hmong “marriage by capture” defence, employed by Hmong men who kidnap and rape women;
- The cultural provocation defence – i.e. men were provoked into killing their wife because the woman committed adultery or treated the husband in a way which lacked “respect”, and that this is particularly provoking in the culture from which the man came;
- The mother-child suicide defence – mothers from Japanese or Chinese backgrounds who kill their children, but fail in their attempt to kill themselves, undertook this action because they were shamed by their husband’s infidelity;
- The argument that some cultures should be allowed to practice clitoridectomy.
I would add to this:
- The “honour killing defence” – the idea that a man killing a female relative is explicable because the woman has dishonoured him by engaging in a relationship with a man who was not acceptable to her family; and
- The “child marriage” defence – the argument by some indigenous communities that young women who have been raped by elder men were “promised” in marriage in an allowed cultural practice.
Okin argues that the cultural message in all these cases is gender-biased: women (and children, in the case of the mother-child suicide cases) are ancillary to men, and should bear the blame for any departure from monogamy. Whether it is the man or the woman who is guilty of infidelity, Okin argues it is the woman who suffers. This propogates the idea that women are first and foremost sexual servants of men whose only real worth comes from their virginity before marriage and their fidelity within marriage. As a result, Okin argues that minority group rights should be treated with care by feminists, and care should be taken to ensure that there is gender equality within groups and that women have adequate say.
Okin was criticised by a number of other feminist theorists, who argued that her approach was inappropriately oppositional, that she did not consider how women in minority cultures may resist patriarchy, and that human rights law contributed to the problem by seeing religion as “other”. (See eg, Leti Volpp and Madhavi Sunder mentioned here).
Cultural relativism is a problem for liberals such as myself. I like to think myself tolerant of others, but to what extent should I tolerate someone else’s illiberal practices? These questions come to the fore with arguments about polygamy and polygyny.
From my perspective as a feminist, polygyny and polygamy can only work if the women involved in such relationships choose freely to enter into it. Also, women in polygynous relationships must also have a right of divorce which is equal to the man’s right. Unfortunately, in many polygynous societies, men are free to divorce their wives, whereas women cannot divorce their husband. And women in such polygynous relationships say that there is always a threat – “If you don’t behave, I’ll get another wife.”
It’s a very difficult question. On the one hand, I tend to think that what people do in the bedroom is up to them, and the State should intervene as little as possible. I find the concept of polygamy abhorrent, but why should I stop others from doing what they want? On the other hand, when a particular practice tends to generally harm women and suggest that they should be relegated to a secondary status as a sexual object, I cannot feel comfortable with it.
Ultimately, I think bigamy should be decriminalised because it is not enforced or workable, and if it is enforced, the prosecution of bigamy as a crime may end up harming women and children who are made vulnerable by the practice. But I’d rather not promote it or offer it as an alternative form of marriage.
Nonetheless, as Trad notes, perhaps we’re not too far off. As a result of the amendments to the new s 4AA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (which I’ve discussed previously here) a mistress is almost a “constructive concubine”. Those provisions worry me, because there is no formal act of “entry” into a relationship, no moment of “choice” where the parties are forced to say what they want out of the relationship. A person might be in a de facto relationship without realising it, or vice versa. Perhaps we would be better off looking to the Roman laws as to concubines than enacting s 4AA. I seem to recall one rule about residing together for a year and a day for a certain relationship to be recognised – so if your partner moved out the day before D-Day, you knew where you stood.
{Aside: SL, I’d be interested to hear your opinion of Trad’s comments on Justinian, and Roman law generally.}
Update:
J.F. Beck deconstructs Trad’s claim in The Age article that he was misquoted by AM.
Pavlov’s Cat on Keysar Trad’s utter writing FAIL.
Update 2:
Now cross-posted on Online Opinion.
55 Comments
Well, Keysar Trad is wrong (in further dog bites man news)… Roman law (even the Christian-inflected Justinian version) permitted concubinage. This wasn’t always, however, to allow a man to have both a wife and a formal mistress. It often allowed a relationship between a high status person (male or female) and a lower status person (male or female), where formal marriage would be considered rather non-U by Roman standards. (The Romans were very, ahem, classist). It also permitted time-limited arrangements (‘we will be together for x years’).
The high status partner was bound by contract to support any children from the union and usually maintained the lower status partner in the manner to which they were accustomed. It was chiefly used by the wealthy, and mostly by men (with, as mentioned, reasonably regular exceptions). It isn’t — strictly speaking — polygamy, because there is still only one wife, and wasn’t always used to allow two partners. It is a formal recognition that marriage may not be for everyone. Both it and Roman marriage were governed by contract, making it difficult to shirk responsibilities, but not difficult to divorce.
The ‘year and a day’ rule is Romano-Celtic in origin, and referred to a monogamous marriage, except with the imposition of a time limit. It was done with a view to establishing that the couple in question liked one another enough to stay married and have a family. The Roman law you’re thinking of is ‘usus’ marriage, which was different again, but was also monogamous. In this, if the couple lived together for a year they automatically became ‘married’ unless one of them left the family home for a period of three days and three nights. This had to be attested in writing and witnessed by persons not blood related to either the man or the woman. It meant that their cohabitation did not ‘flip over’ into marriage (coniubium) automatically.
Do remember, of course, that this plethora of marriage/concubinage/cohabitation laws was developed in part because large numbers of people did not have the right of coniubium. The biggest group, of course, was slaves (which is why the commonest legal documents preserved from antiquity are (in rough order):
1. Enlistment papers.
2. People freeing a slave so that they could marry him or her.
3. Lease arrangements (including the leasing of slaves).
4. Loan documents.
Numbers 1, 3 and 4 would also be common in our society too, if putative archaeologists thousands of years hence dug up our remains, but number 2 is one thing that makes antiquity distinctive. Indeed, a classicist friend here assures me that 2 is actually the commonest of the lot based on recent evidence, so there you go.
The prohibition on senators marrying courtesans Trad mentions was originally enacted by Augustus (much, much earlier than Justinian, and pagan to boot), although various Roman historians point out that it was honoured in the breach rather than the observance. It wouldn’t surprise me if Christian Emperors tried to beef it up, leaving Justinian something real to knock down, but in any case Romans were very classist (as mentioned) and the social rules (‘one doesn’t, dear’) against ‘marrying (far) below one’s class’ for either sex were more effective than any law.
I think you’ve throught through that a lot harder than Keyser Trad had (I like the bits of his article you didn’t cite, like the medical reasons women can’t have multiple husbands
.
.
I can just imagine how much fun splitting property etc. would be in divorce settlements. Does one do an Assets/number of partners division? And how does one take into account the circumstance of having multiple partners — should the other wives lose out because of the husband? There must be thousands of hours of work for some lucky lawyers deciding all of that.
Conrad, indeed – that’s one of my problems with s 4AA. Should a wife of 20 years have to split property 3 ways between her husband and the mistress of 2 years about whom she had no idea, and to whose existence she did not consent? Or equally well, it could be the woman who had a fling…but there isn’t a word for a male mistress, as I’ve discussed before, unless you count the invention of “pateress” as invented in a thread here.
Trad’s arguments about why polyandry doesn’t work…*shakes head*…I didn’t even quote them because they’re so ridiculous.
I once saw a doco on a Tibetan woman who married 5 brothers. The oldest was 30ish, the youngest was 3 years old. She said she had a favourite husband (No. 2) but the others got jealous if she paid too much attention to him. She also said husband No. 5 was quite sweet but given to toddler tantrums.
The only way a liberal democratic society could sanction polygamy is if it included rights to both polygyny and polyandry. Otherwise there is a significant difference in choice depending on gender and that is intolerable. Arguments that somehow physiology justifies prohibition of polyandry are a bit difficult to accept.
If monogamy is not a condition of marriage and polygamy works both ways. It means you invite the circumstance where one man can be married to several women, and each of those can be married to several men.
At that point you have to ask yourself whether there is any point to state sanctioned marriage. It is difficult to see how marriage laws which permitted such situations could offer any real protection on questions of matrimonial property. It is difficult to see how there could be effective regulation of child welfare. Protections in those two categories are the principal benefits of state regulation of marriage.
The only really acceptable justification for regulating marriage is that some social good arises from it. It is difficult to see how much good arises from true polygamy (that is, polygamy on both sides of the gender divide).
Posner and Becker have an interesting take on the topic …
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2006/10/should_polygamy.html
Fascinating post at the Becker-Posner blog, Nick. Thanks for alerting me to it. It seems that Posner’s point partially is the reverse of “male compromise” argument – that is, allowing polygamy would reverse the male compromise, and rich men would be able to have as many wives as they wanted, whereas poor men would be unable to afford any. And his arguments about men having less time to invest in their children, and women having less incentive to become educated (because of competition to gain a rich husband) are interesting.
SL@1 on “The prohibition on senators marrying courtesans”
Any opinion on the accusations by Procopius about Justinian and Theodora?
* General
Bisexuality opens up the discussion and can cause focus on whether members are equal:
Imagine A, B1, B2 (where B are the same gender). Should there be a legal difference between (and pardon the coarseness, but it’s difficult to be terse otherwise.
#1 A, B1, B2 all screw each other.
#2 B1 and B2 don’t screw
#3 A screws B1, B1 screws B2
(Now think of the permutations with more than 1 of both sexes and mixes of orientations)
Scenario #1, non exclusive and equal all around, most resembles a “normal” marriage but recognizes bisexuality as a normal state, and would be the easiest poly for most non-participants to accept.
However, this puts the law back into the bedroom to separate between the “all are equally committed to all” (#1 would satisfy a “one bed test”) versus the other scenarios.
At least modern genetics can sort out bio-parent issues for child support post separation, although you could argue that any member of a marriage accepts child-rearing responsibility and should contribute to child support whether the bio parent or not.
It’s also harder to argue against poly arrangements if ALL extant partners consent to the new entrant. (I don’t know the terminology).
So, apart from the complications of divided loyalties, the maths and administration of property arrangements post-separation becomes a nightmare!
I’m wondering, in “traditional” (e.g. Mormon) poly situations, if the husband dies, do the wives remain married to each other? If not, the poly was never equal in the first place, and either way, such religions couldn’t object to same-sex marriages.
And on a silly note: “Do you, the South Wallaroo football club, take the South Wallaroo netball club in holy matrimony…”
Keeping the peace between 2 is hard enough, more than that probably increases the probability of domestic arguments (or even intolerable nitpicking) too far.
Dave, seriously I heard of a relationship involving the following: Straight male, bisexual woman, lesbian woman. SM and LW both had sexual relationships with BW, but not with each other. They all lived together in the same house, and when BW had a child, both SM and LW regarded it as “their child”. I do wonder what would happen if that relationship broke down (or if one part of the relationship broke down). Nightmare to sort out.
The interesting question you also raise is whether women who are wives to one man remain married after the husband dies. I do know that the women are known as “sister wives”, so I suspect that they do remain bonded in some way even if the man dies. It seems that “sororial polygyny” is less objectionable than other forms (that is, where there is some kind of equality between the women, and they do seem to have to consent to the other women). Perhaps some problems could be solved by making it so that the wife/wives had to propose marriage to the new sister wife instead of the guy? That way, you’re sure she consents.
What if one sister-wife wants to remarry after the original husband dies? Do all the other sister-wives have to remarry the same guy? Or do they have to divorce their sister-wife?
Yeah, you really can’t object to same-sex marriage if you advocate polygamy. (I wonder if Trad has realised this? I suspect he wouldn’t be a fan of same-sex marriage.)
Let me guess, if Trad is rebuked he’ll come out and say his op-ed was taken out of context.
Now throw in gender reassignment and/or orientation changes, and it gets even trickier.
I think any recognition of polys risks the rules for post-separation administration and child support, as well as emotions pre-separation, being “nibbled to death by ducks”.
Doubtless there would be some family lawyers drooling at the prospect of long complicated proceedings with little precedent.
JC – naw, he’ll say he was “mistranslated”.
Dave, as you may have noticed, I was very careful in my comments about Justinian and Theodora. About the only thing that can be stated with certainty is that Procopius hated both of them.
That said, Augustus’ prohibition on senators marrying courtesans is well attested, as is the number of prosecutions brought under the law (zero). Most of his attempts at ‘morality legislation’ were dead on the books by his death, although his cash payments to widows on remarriage and to mothers of three children stuck around (probably because they provided genuine economic incentives, however weak).
JC – naw, he’ll say he was “mistranslated”.
That’s right. It was lost in translation from English to English. hahahahahahahaha
I think Trad himself is lost in translation. Or lost somewhere…(use your imagination)
Given that KT has lived off Centrelink for well over ten years – due to the disabling stress of a job at the ATO, you see – one cannot foresee a rumble of hijabed chicks marauding KT’s estate in Greenacre desperate for his lovin’
Persomally, Im all for polygamy, but find poofs who want to maary beyond the plae.
Memo to KT: The Roman doctrine of univira ‘a woman married once only’ – preceded anything Justinian had to say on anything by almost a millennium.
Just one thing: univira means ‘one man woman’, but does not refer to a lifelong widow; lifelong widowhood (all those Italian and Greek mammas dressed in black) was an affectation of Christianity; the Augustan laws encouraging remarriage after widowhood or divorce (by means of financial inducements) were in this case actively repealed. It’s interesting to see (pagan) Roman women’s tombs praising the dead woman as ‘univira’ when she has had several husbands. This, of course, is merely serial polygamy. In later Christian tombs, the ‘univira’ disappears almost entirely.
Actually, as far as the “unions” go… the more complicated, the more contract law looks appropriate for everything but child support issues.
The sooner the state butts out of “marriages” and the like, leaving that up to churches to use the term, and merely does for any union what is does for de factos (next-of-kin, default inheritance, social security, life insurance, assent to medical procedures, etc) the better.
The only qualifications for government registry of unions should be (1) all parties are human; (2) above the age of consent; (3) capable of informed consent.
Oh, and I’d qualify (1) to make exceptions for two (or more) non-human anthropoid apes that can communicate using sign language because that would satisfy the capable of expressing informed consent rules – with modifications to “age of consent” based on biological maturity. If there are chimp versions of “Bob and Carol, Ted and Alice”, let them go for it.
I think contractual provisions should be extended to child support/custody issues as well, Dave. I think it’s fair to say that child custody and support is the most contested field, and to deny contracting parties access to it is to drain any proposed laws of their efficacy. The only ‘men’s rights’ argument that has ever made sense to me is the anger over the widespread ‘default to the mother’ in custody disputes. Indeed, evidence is emerging that in countries that have instituted presumed join custody, women do not experience anything like the financial penalty after divorce that they do in countries which default to the mother.
All this palaver about ‘in the best interests of the child’ often ensures very unhappy adults, which undermines the best interests of the child anyway. Sunstein and Thaler make a very strong case for correcting problems with child support by (a) a strong system of defaults and (b) where the law doesn’t work, use tax and transfer (always the economist’s preferred solution).
For polygamous relationships, yes, contracts would be appropriate for non-bio parents, although joint responsibiity would be part of being in the family unit I’d have thought. And there would have to be minimal standards (no contracts where no-one has responsibility, for example).
And deadbeat dads and mums should be chased by the Child Support Agency still.
I wasn’t covered then by compulsion, so I never got a cent from my ex, but given her eternal unemployment, it simply wasn’t worth the emotional grief of trying to squeeze it out of her, and it would have taken from a kid I was very fond of -not mine- she had after we separated. (Hmmm, that kid wants me to adopt him, and I’m thinking about it – naaa, not worth chasing her for cash then either, besides, he is 18 soon and she doesn’t even have to know about it. But I’d still have to cough up 200-odd bucks that I cannot afford for the paperwork)
Jeez, one ex is enough grief, the idea of numerous ex wives giving grief is too much to contemplate!
Yes, and if it were also governed by contract, you could sue them for breach as well.
Trad is hardly the person to be advertising the idea of allowing multiple marriage partners.
Personally I have no problem with people wanting to marry 100 partners if that’s what they want to do.
There’s one little problem though and it’s called the welfare state. What happens to child support or if the the income doesn’t quite get these “families” over the poverty line and then taxpayers are having to make up the difference?
As far as I understand it, the old Keyz is unfit to work these days despite looking trim (using that word loosely) every time he used to get on TV and explain to us his old Sheik was taken out of context. Does this mean the old taxpayers are getting slugged for his lifestyle choice?
Perhaps the old Keyz may think about going back to Lebanon and seeing if he can get welfare over there.
Based on the British experience, the latter would not hold true. One of the best hunting grounds for high status males likely to be materially successful in UK society is of course, Oxbridge! The best way for girls to meet them, is being a fellow student (and there’s all that “law of one price” stuff with women having to make themselves more valuable than the competition in order to compete for scarcer men).
One important observation in the Becker-Posner article to which I referred above is that because wives in polygamous marriages have less opportunity for sexual contact with their husband (just because of the “legitimate” competition for that opportunity) they have greater incentive to commit adultery. This in turn means that the husband has to waste time supervising his wives which he could be using for more productive (in the economic sense) activities.
The fact that contracts are seriously suggested as a solution to the rights of parties to a polygamous marriage really underline that point. Having a contract implies enforcing it. The more people in the marriage, the more time and attention has to be devoted to supervising contractual obligations between them.
It is worth noting that in places where polygamy is tolerated, women are generally much worse off. The “managerial responsibility” of the polygamist is relieved at least partially by the fact that there is little protection for women who commit adultery. At best, the adulterer is a social exile. At worst, she will end up dead. That is a pretty significant deterrent to the potential adulterer and a pretty significant relief to the polygamist who would have to spend more time keeping his wives in line.
I don’t think the coincidence of polygamy and poor legal protection for women is accidental.
As unfashionable as it might be to say, a lot of rules (including, in my view, monogamy) develop because they have some social purpose. The economic costs are only one part of it. The undoubted psychological costs to women in what are, on any rational view, highly exploitative relationships are awful on an individual level as well as at a social level.
Also, monogamy is a means of retarding the spread of sexually transmissible diseases.
Agree with you there, which is why if we are going to permit a version of this, then the thoroughly secular Roman wife + concubine is clearly the way to go. The Islamic system strikes me not only as a lawyers’ picnic but also rife with all sorts of other potential issues, of which welfare is only one.
JC @ 21 – well that’s it, isn’t it? I could not afford to have 9 kids, and I certainly wouldn’t expect the state to support me in doing so. And I also would not expect the state to support me if I chose to have additional husbands (why I should want more when I’ve got one awesome one, I don’t know, but anyway).
If we allowed polygamy within Australia and it became widely accepted, I think state-funded support of families would not cope. So under that view, Trad could have as many wives as he wants, as long as we don’t have to fund any of them or the children they produce… Maybe he needs to think about the logical implications of his views.
So under that view, Trad could have as many wives as he wants, as long as we don’t have to fund any of them or the children they produce… Maybe he needs to think about the logical implications of his views.
It would work well in theory, LE. I thought that too which must mean that great minds think alike
An then I thought how would it appear when the news programs or the Current Affairs types hitch onto a couple of these families where the 9 kids are going hungry each day, the father has run off, the Landlord is about to throw them out and have no shoes for school.
The pressure to provide welfare would be enormous even if there was a law passed to nix support for this set up.
JC, too true. All you could do is demand that the father support them, but if the father had no money and no job…how can we let the kids starve, it’s not their fault their dad is an idiot.
Some quick thoughts…
* Trad’s hypocracy (polygny = ok, polyandry = bad). Isn’t this further evidence that Islam (of the form espoused by Trad) has some real problems with gender equality?
* Poly marriage comes up a bit on “Poly in the Media” (http://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/). My take is that the polyamarous community seems to be divided over whether trying to “fit” poly relationships into traditional marriage laws is wise.
At this stage I would say I tend to sit with the camp that says that a better framework for managing the legal situation (property etc) of poly relationships would be to look at the types of structures used for conducting business. These are usually built to accomodate multiple parties and also tend to pre-define rules for what happens should one or more parties wish to leave.
@nIckferrt (23)
Are you talking about all poly relationships? Or only the type Trad is describing? Does this apply to polyandry as well or or polygny? What about non-matrimonial non-monogamy.
Is polygamy the cause of the problems or simply correlated with socieities that have a generally inequitable treatment of women?
Would these “harms” still exist in an equitable society where both men and women could (equally) have multiple partners if they so chose?
Gee, I don’t know where to start (or end) with this one. Yes, it’s one means but…
1) What about practicsing safer sex?
2) Is someone in a closed poly-fidelity situation at more or less risk than someone engaged in serial monogamy? A long term triad (or quad, or network) might actually have a lower risk than someone engaged in serial monogamy.
@Legal Eagle (25) / JC (26)
Ummm… but how is the situation you are describing any different to what can exist today where a man can father children with multiple partners and fail to support them? Would legalising polygamy & polyandry actually increase the incidence of this sort of situation?
because wives in polygamous marriages have less opportunity for sexual contact with their husband (just because of the “legitimate” competition for that opportunity) they have greater incentive to commit adultery. This in turn means that the husband has to waste time supervising his wives which he could be using for more productive (in the economic sense) activities.
I had a lengthy post written here but in short I think it comes down to people thinking they “own” their wife(s) (or husbands or partner(s)). If you’re in a society that views people as property that needs to be “supervised” and then only grant those rights to one gender (or group) then you’re setting yourself up for a bad situation.
At this stage I would say I tend to sit with the camp that says that a better framework for managing the legal situation (property etc) of poly relationships would be to look at the types of structures used for conducting business
You would prefer the holding company structure, Heath? How about limited partnerships or the limited liability corps they have in wide use in the US? How would you treat the subsidiaries in he overall scheme of things?
I have a strong sense that the welfare implications of this would put the kybosh on it quick smart. I can just imagine the ACA crew following someone down the street with a camera… and we’d all be forced to pay for other people’s relationship snafus with our taxes (which we already do, and I resent it enormously).
If you could strip welfare out of it, and confine it to those who can afford to pay (as was always the case historically), then it may work, but I just don’t think that’s possible in the welfare state we’re in.
Heath @ 30: I do think there’s a real difference between saying “we’re not going to lock you up if you marry two people at once” and “hey folks, the state sanctions polygamy and will accommodate it.”
I think Helen’s welfare point is really important. In the past someone like Trad couldn’t have afforded to have multiple wives because he has no job and is not a high status male (rowr, *scratch*, but it’s true). He couldn’t have afforded 9 kids either.
It’s all about the kinds of incentives we want to provide. I want to retain some freedom, but not go all the way and say, “Hey whatever you want to do, that’s fine by me and I’ll help you do it.” I think that could end in disaster.
I’m still planning a mega post on welfare and the unforeseen incentives or disincentives which it may provide.
@SL (33).
Yes, yes – in an ideal world people would pay for their own children. But the starting point for our discussion isn’t the ideal world but where we are today.
I’m sure ACA already does stories on ‘delinquent dads’ who are failing to support children from multiple monogamous relationships. Is this any different to the polygamist scenario above?
But as per my earlier post… would legalising polygamy (and polyandry) actually increase the scale of the this problem? Would those engaging in mutliple relationships in parallel (rather than sequentially) necessarily be more likely to create these kind of problems than those who engage in mutliple monogamous relationships.
@LE 34
I guess the short version of my previous posts is:
1) we all agree other people shouldn’t be forced to support someone else’s lifestyle choice via the welfare state… but…
2) Given the current starting point (welfare state), I’m perhaps skeptical that legalising polygamy is (really) going to make the welfare problems any worse than it is today where “low status” (or high status) men can have mutliple partners and children with them.
Really – the porblem you’re describing is as much of of people having too many kids (too large a family) rather than the relationship structure itself.
Just imo and in my usual way trying to provide some debate.
No, I think the relationship structure itself is intrinsically problematic, at least where polygyny is concerned. The studies show that there’s higher instances of conflict, intra-family violence and abuse in polygynous marriages.
It’s particularly problematic if (a) the woman can’t divorce the husband and (b) had no choice in the first place as to whether to enter the relationship.
I think this is also something we have to face up to with step-families. Now sometimes, step-families can work fantastically. I have two friends (not related) who regard their step-father as their real father. In each case, the step-father gave the girl away at her wedding, and her real biological father wasn’t invited. And then there’s biological families which are totally insane (think of the Fritzl case, where obviously none of the biological imperatives to care for one’s child were working for the father).
But statistically speaking, children are safer with their biological parents. So perhaps we need to think about the implications of this.
I feel somewhat nervous saying something as “un-PC” as this – but I think it is something that has to be said. Non-traditional arrangements tend to be more problematic. That’s not to say that we can’t have non-traditional arrangements, but there’s a reason why we’ve settled on the nuclear family model in our society.
BTW, SL was telling me earlier that if a step-parent adopts a step-child, there are less problems. I don’t know if it’s the formal act of acknowledging that you take responsibility for the child, or if the kind of person who adopts a step-child is likely to be more caring for that child anyway. I’m sure SL can tell us more.
Really – the porblem you’re describing is as much of of people having too many kids (too large a family) rather than the relationship structure itself.
Not true. It’s not even a crap shoot. There’s no way that even if the Trad was working at his old job he wouldn’t be receiving government support with 9 kids in tow.
With two separate families and two fathers potentially working it reduces the chances of them hitting the welfare rolls.
There’s one way you can avoid bad social welfare outcomes with the set up he’s proposing. In any event he’s doing it now and look what has happened. Thank Allah not many other people are, that would absolutely bury us in red ink.
Personally I have no issues in terms of how many marriage partners people want or same sex marriages although I can’t imagine why gay couple would want to get caught up in our present divorce splits if there is uneven wealth.
But here’s the thing… if you want to support multiple marriage partners then have a constitutional change that would ban the welfare state except for the most dire cases such as say handicapped people that have no family support.
SL has just given me the link to the adoption research.
Heath:
I’m so sorry. After re-reading the comment I left it sounds so rude and really obnoxious but it wasn’t intended that way.
It was supposed to be funny that simply came out all wrong. So sorry.
From memory, under islamic conventions, a guy was supposed to get the ok from an imam before getting another wife, and this involved demonstrating the ability to look after them and kids.
Indeed, the only mention of polygyny in the Koran is to help widows and/or orphans, but no more than four wives: Sura 4 v 3
In other words, polygyny in the Koran has the objective of a form of social welfare, either for widows without support (and their kids), or a different woman if you cannot look after orphans you have “adopted” without another person to help.
Thus, it is possible to interpret the Koran as saying below-the-belt love is insufficient (or even improper) justification for taking a second wife, and in a /decent/ welfare nanny state, there would be no need.
Outside the Koran, you are looking at precedent set by judges with dubious motives. As a 19th century Islamic scholar wrote (in the context that jihad was intended by Mohammed to be non-violent)
This attitude to the Koran is akin to Luther’s attitude to the Bible: islamic common (or Catholic canon) law was less trustworthy than the source holy text.
The interpretation could also be extended (this is a bathism, haven’t seen the following anywhere else) such that if a woman is the breadwinner of the household (acting in the “traditional male role), with the husband as primary caregiver, that the woman should be able to take another 3 partners (who cares what sex the caregivers are, although it’s easier to tie in with the Koran if they are lesbians) if she adopts lots of orphans. (How many wealthy female celebs adopt lots of third-world babies?… I wonder if they were Moslem whether they’d use this argument?)
So, I wonder what Keyser Trad would say about a quasi-protestant attitude to Koranic interpretation, and what this implies about his apologia for polygyny.
‘What your right hands possess’ is a reference to slaves, Dave. Like every other civilisation with chattel slavery, they were rooting their slaves like nobody’s business.
Dang… should have said “his Panegyric to Polygyny”
@LE (37)
No, I think the relationship structure itself is intrinsically problematic, at least where polygyny is concerned. The studies show that there’s higher instances of conflict, intra-family violence and abuse in polygynous marriages.
It’s particularly problematic if (a) the woman can’t divorce the husband and (b) had no choice in the first place as to whether to enter the relationship.
Interesting point re: violence & abuse. I guess it probably links to your second point about not being able to divorce and not having a choice in the relationship.
I guess most people when they here poly (agamy() think of the type of situations your describing. i.e. highly inequitable polygny with women having few (no) rights.
Whereas the scenario I am challenging people to think about is one where all persons involved (M or F) have equal rights. i.e. noone is ‘forced’ into the multiple relationship and women can divorce or leave as easily as the male partner.
Well in terms of that – I am a contract lawyer – I tend to think people should be able to contract as they wish within a relationship (subject to Mills’ harm principle). So if there’s a partnership like the one I mentioned @ 7 – that’s fine by me. As long as they’re happy – not an issue. But I think they should work it out between themselves.
I don’t know why the state has to recognise relationships anyway. I think marriage should be a contract. Indeed, in Jewish law, for example, the ketubah is a marriage contract which provides that if the marriage breaks down the husband will pay the wife the equivalent of what she would need to live on for one year. I remember thinking that was really quite sensible and enlightened when I heard about that.
I never liked the idea of pre-nups – because it seems to envisage the marriage will be over before it begins. But if the marriage itself is a contract, and it provides terms and remedies for breach…that seems more logical. To this contract lawyer, anyway.
So what if he divorces all three wives and they each demand 50%, as is the custom in Western democracies?
And no, I’m not talking about in other countries. I’m talking about in Australia… where it is customary for divorced couples to divide their assets equally. 50/50, between man and woman…women?
Now how would that work if we allowed bigamous/polygamous marriages in Australia?
Unless we changed our core principles? Do we really want to do that?
Why do some want us to do that? Why did some of “they” move here? For change or to change? To embrace a new way of life or to implement one?
Or a bit of both?
Interestingly,. I moved to Korea a while back. To teach English. At first for just something to do, but later, after seeing myself as much as a Westerner as an Australian, and seeing their desire to learn English, and after seeing the changes this once dirt poor nation has gone through (and how), and their desire for change (and how), yet their fear of losing themselves, the pain they’ve gone though, still go through… oh, you lawyers are better at describing all that stuff…
And maybe, why did I stay on? Ultimately to change Korea, which it has much in the past 60 years? Especially the last 10? More Western products, ideas, clothes, food, you name it…. Do I just stay to hold down a job?
It’s easy to just say you’re here so learn the language (and more importantly) the culture, but it ain’t that easy. And while one wants to adapt, one doesn’t necessarily want to change completely, nor embrace wholeheartedly.
That’s what I’ve learnt living overseas.
And whilst I still think Keysar needs to do more of the adapting than we do (just as I do more than the Koreans I interact with), he has a point, albeit weak.
The key difference is that the Korea vs the world dynamic does have key differences to the Australia vs the world dynamic.
For starters, the structure, hmm, focus, of our economies. Plus Australia’s connection to Europe’s and the US’, economic, historic, political and lingual heritage vs Korea’s technological and faintly, er, the rest..
Trade.
Is this our real price for utilising the Saudi oil? Keyser gets to stir the pot so here much beacuse of that? Is this the real legacy of 911? Keyser gets to whip it up? And folks like me get to be shot down by troofers?
Yet, it’s hard in this case to even compare apples with apples. In fact, I ate some Korean apple today. Looked and tasted a bit different.
Point is, it seems like Trad likes stirring the pot but he would be wise not to lift the lid off the blender.
Trad, when in Rome do as the Romans do. I hold my Ps and Qs here. I bow to bosses etc, even when my heart is raging.
I learn their language, and customs (and I know you have ours), yet know where I stand. I understand they want me and appreciate me over here, and yet, yes, there’s so much stupid, illogical shit I’ve just got to accept.
And it sucks, sometimes. But this is their country, and although they ultimately pay me very generously, it is their country to change.
Different dynamic with Australia, but basically the same principle.
You’ve been going in waaaaay too hard, Trad, and it’s bring you nothing but enemies and nothing but division to this country.
Stop. Before you cause more division for Australia will tolerate it no more.
Have a BBQ. Whatever. But man, as someone collecting welfare, advocating multiple wives (more welfare), you are really getting on the nose.
Claiming discrimination when the same rules are being applied to you as everyone else (Clarke)?
If I did that in Korea, I would be most unwelcome.
Koreans want the change, but my job is to help facilitate it, not force it.
And forcing it is what you are doing Trad, and it’s not going down well, mate… just as it never did when I tried to force it. You are not facilitating it.
You’re really not doing you or your cause any favours, mate.
bingbing, most of us are in bed and the UK contingent are still at work, so you’ll have to wait until someone is around for longer tomorrow.
You are right to bring up the welfare issue, though.
@JC (38).
You’re still fixated on the Trad model of poly household.
In a more egalatarian poly household, the women in the household could/would be working too. If we take LE’s example of the ‘V’ poly setup described previously, one adult could stay at home looking after the children whilst the other two worked.
A 9 child household with 3 (or 4) adults could (if they coordinated themselves and took the right mix of jobs) actually have all 4 adults earning income during the week whilst still having at least 2 adults at home…
As I think I said to LE above… people seem to be fixated on the Trad (tradtional stereotype) polygny rather than thinking about what might be also be possible.
Granted its not an arrangement for everyone and the government shouldn’t be artificially incenting it – but I’d liek to see people think outside the box a bit more.
Bingbing, I’d agree with you totally. When I have visited or lived in other countries, I have always tried to keep to local customs. I think it’s just the polite thing to do. So for example, in South East Asia, I was told that showing one’s shoulders is a bit risque. Accordingly, I wore tops with shoulders. I might think that rule is illogical (what’s wrong with shoulders?) but I respected it, because I’m sure I’ve got cultural rules which a South East Asian person would think equally illogical.
There’s just no point stirring the pot like Trad does. It doesn’t win you any friends or converts in the general populace. When he says I have to support him in his self-indulgent, sexist wishes, well, I bristle. AND I CERTAINLY DON’T FEEL LIKE PAYING FOR THEM!
The more I think about it, the more I think there’s a public/private divide with one’s culture. So if Trad wants to have 57 wives, and pay for them himself, that’s fine with me, as long as (a) the wives freely choose to enter the marriage (b) the wives can divorce him if they so wish and (c) the wives are not being abused or harmed in any way.
Or if Trad’s wife wants to cover herself from head to toe and wear a burqa, that’s fine by me. But Trad can’t tell me I’m immoral for not behaving like her, and insofar as the burqas provide actual physical and practical difficulties in doing certain tasks, the wife shouldn’t complain if she is excluded from doing these tasks.
So – he can’t impose his values on me. He’s welcome to do whatever he wants in private, as long as it doesn’t harm anyone, but it’s rude to demand that your adoptive country should follow your values wholesale when they’re not values to which the mainstream culture is accustomed.
There has to be a little bit of give and take, on both sides (and yes, I’ve also lived overseas for periods of my life, so I know that you have to adapt in some ways).
bingbing@46. the 50 is based on contribution. Two wives, 33; 3 wive 25, i’d rckon.
bingbing@46 and Dave@52: it’s a little more complicated than that. It depends on a whole raft of things. Sometimes it depends upon expectations which one party has created in the other (ie, a guy has told a girl ‘half of this is yours’). Sometimes it depends upon financial contributions. Sometimes it depends on other domestic contributions.
So you’d have to undertake this massive mathematical exercise, working out who had contributed more to the relationship/s, and what expectations each party had etc etc.
In fact, there is a case involving multiple wives called Green v Green (1989) 17 NSWLR 343. It’s a rather revolting case involving a man called Mr Green. Green goes on holiday to Thailand in 1966, and meets a 14 year old Thai girl. He brings her home to Australia and lives with her intermittently.
In 1967, she falls pregnant and he says that he will look after her. She subsequently bears him another child. She is his de facto partner.
Mr Green lets her live in House 1. He tells her “This is your house. I bought this for you,” but claims he can’t give her title because the tax office will look into it – therefore title is in the name of a friend. Mr Green then swaps House 1 for House 2 (which is in his son’s name) and promises to give it to her. The son lives in House 1. He says he will “fix it [House 2] up” and that “it would be (her) house”. In about 1976 Mr Green instructs his solicitor to transfer title of House 2 to the Thai girl. His solicitor said the girl asked “Are you going to transfer into my name … the Blakehurst house?” and he said: “Yes, we do that.” But the transfer never takes place, and the title to the house remains in the son’s name.
After Green dies, it is discovered that Green had a wife and another de facto (each of whom also had houses provided for them). The son resists the Thai girl’s claim of an interest in House 2.
In the end, the girl gets the house because there was a common intention between the parties that she would get an interest in the house. So each wife gets a house in the end.
The judge makes a funny comment that none of the wives knew about each other, but that Green was a “used car salesman” and was good at lying!
But you can see it’s not in a woman’s interest to get into a polygynous relationship if they’re going to be dividing up one house. Really you need separate houses for them all.
LE @51 “(a) the wives freely choose to enter the marriage”
Beware of economic/social coercion: inequality of opportunity leads to
a) women with minimal economic or social opportunity except as a wife
b) poor men unable to support a wife
resulting in strong economic pressure to become a wife
A book well worth reading is The Bookseller of Kabul by Åsne Seierstad.
This via Legal Theory Blog, a paper at SSRN on Texas polygamy and child welfare
3 Trackbacks
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by hollygemer and John Lostflame. John Lostflame said: skepticlawyer » The more the merrier? http://bit.ly/21ew6i [...]
[...] at my humble blog? this post is not about his most recent ravings in favour of polygamy, you can go here for an excellent critique of that little foot in mouth cavort, no this is about the way that people like Trad are so willing to play the race card whenever they [...]
[...] course, as discussed in my post on polygamy, generally only well-off, high status men can afford to have more than one wife (or a wife and [...]