Polygamy, Marriage Equality, and Male Disposability

Posted: May 11, 2013 by ShortTimer in Culture, Leftists, Unintended Consequences
Tags:

Last month, Slate had this interesting pro-polygamy piece by Jillian Keenan:

Recently, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council reintroduced a tired refrain: Legalized gay marriage could lead to other legal forms of marriage disaster, such as polygamy. Rick Santorum, Bill O’Reilly, and other social conservatives have made similar claims. It’s hardly a new prediction—we’ve been hearing it for years. Gay marriage is a slippery slope! A gateway drug! If we legalize it, then what’s next? Legalized polygamy?

We can only hope.

Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.

I’m not really going to look at gay marriage or the concept thereof.  The interests of liberty would probably best be suited by getting government out of it and letting individual churches decide; and otherwise leaving alone thousands of years worth of humanity’s history and understanding of marriage.

But polygamy starts to change the dynamic of human society much more violently, and leads us towards barbarism.

Read that last section and notice what’s missing.  Slate says it would “help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.”

Notice what’s missing?

Polygamy is not good for men.

Before the institution of marriage came about, strong or fortunate males got mates, weak or unfortunate males did not.  That’s not exactly a world that preserves liberty.  That’s a world where a few powerful men with multiple wives procreate and advance their own personal societies, and extra men truly are made disposable.

As per the joke made by President Calvin Coolidge, a rooster can mate a dozen times a day… but he’ll do so with a dozen different hens.  Those dozen hens don’t need a dozen roosters.

Those other eleven roosters in a polygamous society, deprived at a basic level of ever being able to reproduce, or to create families of their own, aren’t going to ever be productive.  They are predetermined genetic losers because they didn’t have wealth and power enough to attract women – women who simply flock to the most powerful, best providers in society and join a harem.  That helps protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and the (powerful man’s) family, which Jillian advocates.

It also leaves the other eleven out there susceptible to the idea that if they blow themselves up and kill a bunch of people from a different society for the powerful man, they’ll get their own harem of 72 virgins in the afterlife.  So why not go on suicidal missions to protect that powerful man’s family?  Seems like a good enough idea.  They’re already destined for the genetic dustbin anyway.

From Slate commenter Paul Murray:

Polygamy is the natural state of affairs in our species. A small number of men – “partiarchs” – have multiple wives and children, forming tribes. They hand their wealth over to their heirs, and the other sons are discards, “arrows in your quiver”, to be spent and used up in incessant wars with the tribe on the other side of the river.

This is great for women. Any woman would rather be fourth wife to a winner than have a loser all to herself, and in a polygamous, patriarchal, tribal society almost all the men are losers.

Problem is: these men have no reason to contribute to society. None. So these societies tend to be poor because its mainly the labour of men that creates wealth. It is no coincidence that civilisation rose when monogamy was invented and mandated. It’s the promise “for every man who works, a wife and children” that built the roads, dams, and bridges.

You think polygamy is a fine idea? Head on over to tribal Africa, or tribal anywhere else, and welcome the future. How ironic that the end-game of feminism is to reintroduce actual patriarchy.

This feminist-leftist moral relativity about polygamy truly does begin to destroy society.

There are entire branches of the “pick-up artist” community dedicated to revenging the wrongs of their own beta-hood by treating women like dirt.  The theory is that women treated like dirt think that they’re in the presence of a great and powerful man – because that powerful man can afford to treat women like dirt, so then any man who treats women like dirt must be powerful enough to have his pick.  Really, he’s just an asshole, but he’s mimicking the tricks of powerful assholes, and turning everyone into assholes.

He’s half of the equation.  The other half is the Slate author who wants to join in polygamy with 100 other women and Brad Pitt.  He can afford to raise their offspring, she can be well-provided for, and she gets the status of being wife #384.  Remember what she writes:

it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families

Her perfect world where she’s wife #153 to George Clooney actually justifies the degenerate pick-up artist slimeball, and sends the world ever-spiraling down.

All of this slowly reduces society into a culture of barbarity, a culture where a few powerful men really can rule the world completely – a savage patriarchy – but women’s self-interest is preserved.  They get to pick powerful mates, and they get their genes provided for by the powerful males.  It’s a very brutal, animalistic tribalist society that replaces civilization.

Polygamy is great – if you’re one of the powerful men, or one of the chosen women.  To everyone else, it’s death one way or another.  The most successful elements of humanity did away with polygamy for a reason.

Comments
  1. Great post. I have never thought about the detriment to men in a polygamist society. I mean, that’s supposed to be the end-all, be-all, to have a harem, right? But you are right. Most men would be unable to obtain that level of power.

    I am continually confused by feminism. I know there are supposed to be many strains, and the term means different things to different people, but geez. Why in the world would polygamy be considered pro-woman by any feminist? Makes no sense. Where is your power when you are one of many wives? Wouldn’t that make most women “disposable” just like most men?

    Funny how it seems like every single one of the leftist views (every. single. one.) no matter how unrelated to each other all serve the same purpose in common: destruction of the family.

    best
    Lin

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s