Monday, July 24, 2006

Women and Polygamy

Polygamy is an empowering lifestyle for women. It provides them the environment and opportunity to maximize their female potential without all the tradeoffs and compromises that attend monogamy. The women in my family are friends. You don't share two decades of experience, and a man, without those friendships becoming very special.

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

Barlow, if you only knew...

This is not a judgment about you... you're a victim of your conditioning. You've been so conditioned your whole life to think that something akin to slavery is good and right you don't see just how wrong it is.

I saw what my mother went through at the hand of a sister wife insane with jealousy. I saw what my brothers and sisters went through at the hand of a "sister" wife possessed with jealousy.

I've seen what my sisters who've been forced into marriages are going through now...

...And there is nothing "maximizing female potential" about it. In fact quite the opposite. Very akin to slavery in my opinion.

Anytime you make women (or anyone for that matter) property to be owned and "ruled" over you create the problems polygamy creates such as child abuse, sexual deviancy, spousal abuse, and poverty.

In order for a child to develope a healthy sexual identity they must see a loving relationship between the parents.... Not a relationship based on ownership, or "ruling" over someone.

No one has the right to rule over anyone. Jesus of Nazareth certiainly never saught to rule over anyone. Perhaps you should think about that folks.

There is nothing good, noble, or right about polygamy. Just like we evolved from the idea that slavery was acceptable when are we going to evolve from the idea that women are property to be owned and ruled over?

unrestrained said...

You can't be serious..

Empowering? For women? Really?

It's empowering for a woman when she needs support from her husband but it is not her "turn".

It's empowering to share the ONE person you love as a partner, your husband with numerous other women?

It's empowering to be taught that your role in life is to populate the earth?

It's empowering to be poor because there are too many mouths to feed?

It's empowering to be "submissive" to your husband who is splitting his time up between many women?

It's empowering to be told who you "belong" to like you are a commodity?

As for friendships in polygamy:
I have plenty of "girl friends". They just don't sleep with my husband..

Barlow, what specifically are the "tradeoffs and comprimises" of monogamy?

ATAR_i said...

ummm, are you sure you aren't fundy - this is the exact same topic as above written by the exact same author.

Is there some post at the bottom you want archived so bad you're spamming the blog?

Pathetic.

muggsey said...

Maybee they have a 'ghost writer'!

But only folks with Urim and Thummin seer stones can read the writin'!

Anonymous said...

I do not practice polygamy, but I do seriously believe that women can be happy in it. I know a few women that are not FLDS and are not Mormon or Muslim or any religiously based reason but choose to have sister wives just for the friendship. BUT I also believe that women in the FLDS that practice it are not always doing it by choice, but rather fear. That, to me, is the problem. If a women chooses, without doing it for the fear of being damned and going to hell, more power to them. It's anyone's choice how they choose to live. Key word being CHOOSE. From what I hear in the FLDS most women can't stand their sister wives. They are fighting to be the favorite and if they are not even the children suffer. This is a fact. If it is done in a healthy way then no harm done. Children have great opportunities if they have more loving people in their lives. But another thing is that if someone lives the polygamy lifestyle this means that there is more time, as stated, for them to pursue their own goals because some things can be shared between them all. But, in the FLDS they are not allowed to have any other goals aside from cleaning, cooking, having babies and raising children. There is nothing wonderful about living a life, polygamy or not, that holds you back from being the best you can be in all aspects.

For those that CHOOSE polygamy good for you for living as you wish to live. For those that FORCE polygamy by way of threats and fear, too bad that's the only way that you can get wives.

fttc said...

How many of you condemning polygamy have actually lived under it? I know there are those posting who have had terrible experiences in it. There have also been postings from those who have not. One does not disprove the other. I grew up in a polygamous family. I am the child of a plural wife. Because of my experience with living it I have no problems with it. Many here are speaking about the man dividing his love among more than one woman. If the man's heart is in the right place spiritually he does not divide anything, he multiplies it. Plural marriage will only work if all involved are willing to look after the interests of their neighbor first just as the early Church did under the direction of Peter. Not even a monogamous relationship will work if the participants are looking at self-interest above the marriage relationship. Marriage is so much more than bedroom time, yet this is all that seems to come to mind when most speak of plural marriage.

The poster above seems to have had a horrible time with their family in living polygamy. I have had just the opposite. I know others that feel the same way I do. This does not mean that one of us is wrong. They cannot say that polygamy is always bad and wrong any more than I can say it is always good and right. The last statement of Anon 9:37 is the correct attitude in my opinion. Never should anyone be cooerced into any marriage, polygamous or otherwise. I know there are those who are, I know also there are those who are not. Before our religion was hijacked by presumptious men the women had full choice in the matter of marriage. This is the way it should be.

ATAR_i said...

FTTC - always the voice of reason - nicely put.

muggsey said...

fttc

Even I am in agreement. Your argument is reasonable and not self serving.

unrestrained said...

fttc said:
Before our religion was hijacked by presumptious men the women had full choice in the matter of marriage. This is the way it should be.

Exactly when was this time when women had full choice?

ATAR_i said...

Good question unrestrained - I am anxious to hear the answer to that question.

fttc said...

All of my lifetime there have been men in our religion claiming that the 'prophet' had all power over the people. It was mostly pushed by the Barlow's and those supporting them. Until the early '90's it was refuted by the leaders. The girls were given a choice and if they did not want to marry someone recommended they did not have to. I know of several that asked for their partner and got them. Am I denying that there were girls that were pressured into marriages? No, I am not. In every case such as this it was the parents of the girl who forced the issue and not the leadership. If the leadership knew of the true feelings of the girl they were respected.

Anonymous said...

Well, folks Plural Marriage has been mulled over.

How does everyone feel about the removal of women and children from men who lost their "priesthood according to Warren".

Wives and children are property of the "prophet" and when men loose their "priesthood" they loose their family.

Do I have that right?

Is the goal of Father Warren to have men loose their priesthood and Warren and his very "Chosen" end up with the women and children and be one big "happy well rounded" family?

Anonymous said...

Yeah, the girls were given a choice. They called it "Permissive Counselling". They could marry who they wanted but had to decide if they were willing to compromise their salvation for it.

desert darling said...

I think warren has painted himself into a corner. He has made rash decisions in a moment of fit just as often as he has made cold, calculated ones. he just has enough stubborn pride that won't allow him to admit that he has made a mystake now that he is "the prophet". There will be no graceful way out of the situation he has created for himself and his followers.

unrestrained said...

fttc,
I think we have to be careful making statements like "In every case such as this it was the parents of the girl who forced the issue and not the leadership. If the leadership knew of the true feelings of the girl they were respected".
That might be the cases you have seen personally, but in no way reflect the truth for everone.
Thank you for putting your opinion to the subject.

ATAR_i said...

Fttc, so the barlows were conservatives among the FLDS even before wj came along then?

I feel tremendously sorry for the women who are hustled here and there. As conservative as they've been raised, I can't imagine that would be an easy transition.

It's hard to know who to feel more sorry for in these situations.

The men who have lost their families,
The women who were hustled around,
The kids trailing behind,

Just all in all a regretable situation.

fttc said...

Atar

I don't know what you mean by conservatives? Maybe my defintion of conservative is skewed? I would think a conservative position would be to maintain more power with the individual and not give it to the 'government'.

warren out manuevered the Barlow's but accomplished what they ultimately had in mind. He carried to the finish what they started. I am speaking of JYB's sons. They did not follow in the footsteps of their father.

ATAR_i said...

By conservative I mean more to the very edge of the belief in a more rigid way. I always consider liberal to be to the edge of any certain belief system in the opposite way - a relaxed, non rigid way.

I'm not using it by the way we describe politics (government authority etc) does that make sense.

I'm saying were they more rigid than most FLDS even before warren?

fttc said...

I had the idea that is what you meant. What I was trying to say is they (Barlow's) turned our religion in a direction away from the core beleifs. Since we were speaking of choices in marriage, it was never a tenet of Mormonism, Fundamental or otherwise to exert control over the women (or the men for that matter). What the teachings of the Barlow's did was make it easy to gain that control.

As I see the actions of the Barlow's and those supporting them as an apostacy from the fundametals of our religion I cannot reconcile calling them conservatives in that religion.

fttc said...

Unrestrained

You are correct in that I speak from my experience and was actually responding to others who would claim it is always the opposite to what I said. I cannot know everyone's experience. That being said character does not change from one minute to the next unless the person is actively psychotic. As I don't believe this is a valid accusation against those leaders I am speaking about I dare say there are very few if any that can prove me wrong.

ATAR_i said...

Thanks fttc - I can understand why you wouldn't want to call them that.

onthestreet said...

Anonymous said (7/27/2006 11:01 AM): Well, folks Plural Marriage has been mulled over. How does everyone feel about the removal of women and children from men who lost their "priesthood according to Warren". Wives and children are property of the "prophet" and when men loose their "priesthood" they loose their family.

STREET’s Reply (Mt. 10):
34. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36. And a man's foes [shall be] they of his own household.

Anonymous said...

While we're quoting the bible, how about the versus telling us not to judge our neighbor for a mote when a beam is in our own eyes. Why is warren casting men out for pittances while he fornicated two women, so they were "shot-gun" married to him.

Anonymous said...

"While we're quoting the bible, how about the versus telling us not to judge our neighbor for a mote when a beam is in our own eyes. Why is warren casting men out for pittances while he fornicated two women, so they were "shot-gun" married to him. "

ROFL!!
Dont judge you say? And then you judge Warren Jeffs based on something you have no way of proving?

Anonymous said...

I tend to trust two girl's father and a patriarch (bishop) in SLC over Warren's hypocritical piety.

onthestreet said...

Perhaps only because you're after their flesh.

ATAR_i said...

I have this silence of the lambs vision of OTS now. Playing with his little cocoons and hiding his genitals as he walks around.

onthestreet said...

Sacred are the issues of life.