Based muslim child
-
It’s an easy one-sentence way to point out the inherent subjugation of women.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]And that's why some people object to polygamy. Others object because of the multiple sex partners. I could imagine people even thinking of it as some kind of tax dodge, or socialism, or reasons I couldn't fathom.
-
A bit of both. The Greeks and Romans had a cultural taboo against polygamy which Christianity inherited, which means that Christians have historically been opposed to polygamy (which was not the case in Pre-christian northern Europe) on moral grounds. There is also the issue that historically polygamy has been associated with patriarchal societies in which men are allowed or expected to have multiple wives, but women are not allowed to do the same. Additionally, it is also culturally associated with treating women as property of the husband. Personally I don't have any issue with polygamy if everyone is free to do whatever but the way most cultures practice it, it's unfair to women. Then again, that could also he said of "traditional" marriage in a lot of monogamous scenarios too.
"one to cook and one to clean" is one of the "joke-y" sayings I heard
-
Thanks, I got the humor, what I'm wondering about is what's the predominant reason people in general object to polygamy, regardless of whether it's Islam or Mormons or whatever.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]People confuse polygamy with polygyny.
Polygamy is when one person can marry multiple people.
Polygyny is when one person can marry multiple women.
Polyandry is when one person can marry multiple men.
There's no specific word for when one person can marry multiple nonbinary people.
-
Call me whatever you want, I believe women should have equal rights.
You do think that women should be able to marry more than one person? So above story wouldn't be a problem for you if one of the women had a husband and a wife?
From my personal experience a lot of muslim women do not consent to their husband havinv more than one wife (in Islam the woman has to consent), so it's something that happens only when the women agree to it.
-
This post did not contain any content.
If this wasn't posted by a right winger farming anti lgbt sentiment I'd probably cringe at the school being excited to parade the kid around for being accepting of lgbt people.
I hope Islam gets slept by JDM so I can laugh at people like this guy.
-
If this wasn't posted by a right winger farming anti lgbt sentiment I'd probably cringe at the school being excited to parade the kid around for being accepting of lgbt people.
I hope Islam gets slept by JDM so I can laugh at people like this guy.
The Japanese domestic market?
-
Somehow I doubt your sincerity. Most people who bring up women's rights when it comes to Muslims only bring up women's rights when Muslims are involved. Like conservatives who would happily defund every women's sports programs but use women's sports as a cudgel to hurt trans people.
It's really transparent and disingenuous, and you give off those same vibes.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Based on one comment? You’re pulling that out of your ass because confronting your own inconsistencies makes you uncomfortable. Feel free to stalk my comment history of you want.
Also way to tell on yourself that you don’t respect women’s rights.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Actually just has dead, wrapped up Egyptians in his basement.
-
You can’t consent to a religion if leaving it causes you to be shunned by your family and community.
Then almost no one consents to their religion worldwide at all, barring a relative handful who leave the dominant faith in their community and are essentially disconnected solo practitioners of whatever, because joining or marrying into a different religious community is essentially just choosing a different group with the power to shun you for leaving their faith in turn.
Pretty abusive, isn’t it?
-
Sure, but that's universal. Most of the Islamic theocratic have this problem, and it's a point of general focus... but Islam is their excuse, not a functional cause. It's not like Mormons did it any better.
Agreed. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.
-
Excuse me? If you want one find her yourself.
I answered your question of if my objection was about the subjugation of women, and I pointed out how subjugating women is the problem.
-
Actually just has dead, wrapped up Egyptians in his basement.
For when he gets snacky
-
Agreed. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.
Do you agree? Really? Cause your intimation seems to be that anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% doesn't believe women should have equal rights.
You could expound on your point a bit more, but it'd probably take more than one sentence. Please try.
-
The Japanese domestic market?
Jeffrey Dahmer Meats, (Inc.)?
-
People confuse polygamy with polygyny.
Polygamy is when one person can marry multiple people.
Polygyny is when one person can marry multiple women.
Polyandry is when one person can marry multiple men.
There's no specific word for when one person can marry multiple nonbinary people.
Polyphony?
-
Is the main objection to polygamy that having multiple sex partners is immoral or that the whole arrangement is subjugation of women (because usually it's multiple wives not husbands), or some other reason?
Depends on whose objecting. This arrangement pretty much only works at scale with a combination of religious brainwashing, inequality between and amongst the genders, and a healthy dose of male mortality especially from war.
Inequality among a gender:
For instance if bob and Sam both make 70k 5 women aren't all marrying one or the other in most instances.Inequality between the genders:
Given a complex life path beyond follow in husband's shadow no matter what or become a parish the chance of instability with more people increases with each member added.So the first obvious person to object to broad enactment of this idea ought to be women raised to buy into this when it's not their best option.
Next is society for such groups brainwashing kids.
Then there is the downside of the enabling inequality. Anyone not on the top end of the financial spectrum ought to object to that.
Women ought to object to the idea that they ought to share.
Men not in the top 5-20% ought to object to competing for the remaining women not attached to high status males. Note this is what incels say they are mad about now but there is so much to unpack re their broken brains and it's just not at this juncture real.
Society should be mad at the very large number of unattached men who normally cause trouble.
Some such societies deal with this by trading women like Pokemon cards and driving off excess men. This doesn't work without wars to kill them off or somewhere to drive them to.
Basically everyone but a smallish minority of men would be worse off which is why this is non existent in modern functioning society.
There little net effect on society with a small incidence of polygomy just like with lead in the water.
-
Do you agree? Really? Cause your intimation seems to be that anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% doesn't believe women should have equal rights.
You could expound on your point a bit more, but it'd probably take more than one sentence. Please try.
I honestly don’t understand what you’re asking of me. Women having equal rights is a binary thing, they either do or don’t.
-
You do think that women should be able to marry more than one person? So above story wouldn't be a problem for you if one of the women had a husband and a wife?
From my personal experience a lot of muslim women do not consent to their husband havinv more than one wife (in Islam the woman has to consent), so it's something that happens only when the women agree to it.
It’s a complicated question to answer. Consent can’t be given under duress, and the rate of abuse in polygamous marriages is astoundingly high. If there was some magical way that the state could verify that everyone is consenting with a true option to say no without their life being ruined, that would be great. However having the state decide who can marry would go really poorly at some point. As a result, I think we’re left with the western status quo where we throw the baby out with the bath water and ban the whole thing. It’s kinda like how some people can be responsible handgun owners but others are murderers and the potential downsides are great enough that nobody gets the privilege. Same for selling cocaine.
-
You're making a sweeping general statement.
Polygamy is just Polyamory taken to vows.
There is a problem with a lot of the people that practice polygamy in an unethical way, but not polygamy itself.There is a problem with a lot of the people that practice polygamy in an unethical way
That is what the person you responded to said. There is a problem with the cultural of polygamy here because it's done in an unethical way.
but not polygamy itself.
That is also what the person you replied to said. They clarified specifically that if both genders are free to practice polygamy in the same way there's no issue.
-
"one to cook and one to clean" is one of the "joke-y" sayings I heard
Having been on some readings I had not picked up in a second recently, two to poison and be each other's alibi is what went thru my head first lol.
Nothing else to do with the thread. Just the first thought that went thru my head- any rat bastard that lives that shit deserves to be poisoned by both.
