Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!harvard!panda!genrad!decvax!dartvax!chelsea
From: chelsea@dartvax.UUCP (Karen Christenson)
Newsgroups: net.legal,net.singles,net.social,net.women
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Ruling on Sodomy (really bigamy)
Message-ID: <4890@dartvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 25-Jul-86 12:01:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: dartvax.4890
Posted: Fri Jul 25 12:01:21 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Jul-86 22:06:31 EDT
References: <3098@jhunix.UUCP> <14682@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: chelsea@dartvax.UUCP (Karen Christenson)
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Lines: 38
Xref: mnetor net.legal:2786 net.singles:8594 net.social:737 net.women:4864

In article <1561@ihlpa.UUCP> strickln@ihlpa.UUCP (Stephen D. Stricklen) writes:
>> On a slightly different but similar topic,  what about the laws agains
>> polygamy?  In what way does polygamy threaten our society that it is 
>> dangerous enough to be outlawed?
>> 
>> - E. Eades
>
>An interesting point, and I thought about this for a while.  My guess is the
>laws were set down to protect women in a time when it was easier for men to
>take advantage of them.  One hundred or two hundred years ago women had
>little recourse if they suffered abuse at the hands of their husbands.  I see
>polygamy laws as one means of offering protection.  Were our society truly
>free of sexual discrimination, I would see no reason to keep such laws on the
>books, as all parties could make the decision to enter polygamous relation-
>ships on truly free will.
>
>Steve Stricklen
>ihnp4!ihlpa!strickln

     I don't see how monogamy is going to protect a woman from abusive
husbands.  Now with polygamy, the wives could all gang up on him.

     You can develop a strong argument for polygamy based on the protectionist
attitudes toward women common in just about any period of history.  Women need
a man to provide protection and status.  Women are incapable of handling their
own financial affairs (remember, I'm pretending to be a protectionist.  THIS
IS NOT REALLY ME!  Okay?).  Some women manage to escape male protection -
widows and single women who have no male guardians.  The more women a man
marries, the more he protects.  Fewer poor widows and destitute spinsters
become a financial burden on the community, church, state, whatever.  (The
term spinster came about because unmarried women in England circa 1600, I
think, were required by law to do so many hours of spinning per day - to keep
them out of trouble and make sure they were productive members of socity.)
If you have a male-dominated society, it kind of makes sense to have the male
dominate as many females as he can, no?

                                   Karen Christenson
"Mostly harmless."                 ...!dartvax!chelsea