The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Polygamy: lust or love > Comments

Polygamy: lust or love : Comments

By Ayub Maftoon, published 18/7/2008

There is an element hypocrisy in Western society when it comes to polygamy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
For Ayub Maftoon to conclude, "every member of the public has the right to lobby for what they believe is their legitimate and humane right" is so hypocritical considering the appalling human rights record - particularly for women - of so many Islamic societies.
Posted by elizabeth4, Friday, 18 July 2008 10:14:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Homosexuality occurs in nature, so by definition it IS 'natural'. And your statistical argument takes into account gay males but not gay females. Believe me, we're very much out there, and if all men were Muslim our numbers would swell dramatically.

As I have argued elsewhere, anyone in Australian society who wishes to see polygamy legally recognised is entitled to state their case and try to persuade others. However, if this is only going to come from religious minorities that also falsely presume male superiority over women, you're in for a very long battle, and you thoroughly deserve to lose it.

I would also point that most of the sources you cite are at least 50 years old, and western societies DO NOT condone sexual activity outside of long-term partnerships.
Posted by Cosmogirl, Friday, 18 July 2008 10:30:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You need to do something about this

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b14_1215782328

before you start lecturing us !
Posted by elizabeth4, Friday, 18 July 2008 10:38:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said Cosmogirl, I was going to make that very point.

Though elizabeth, I've got to strongly disagree with your initial comment - judge Mr Maftoon by his words, not that tired 'but Islamic societies are BAD!'

Using that logic doesn't work. I could apply the same logic to any person from many poor African nations, or indeed, go back to the wake of WW2 and you could use it as an excuse for vilifying Germans. It wouldn't make either right, and it would have nothing to do with what they're actually saying.

Judge people by the merits of their argument, don't just dismiss the argument with such a weak device.

That being said, Maftoon's arguments are very very weak. As pointed out, he makes no mention of Lesbianism. Put simply, to make this omission is glaringly foolish and makes me think those statistics are completely unreliable. On the basis of this alone they can be dismissed, though there are other reasons as well.

He also states: "where there are extramarital sexual relationships with mistresses and girlfriends, are treated as civilised practice."

If he had made the case that these extramarital affairs occur, then perhaps he would be on stronger ground.

But I'd challenge him to point to where they're considered "civilised" practice.

That's utter rubbish. There is nowhere they are considered 'civilised practice.' They are shunned. The people who engage in them are not respected. Again, this is totally misleading.

"actively seeking out the opposite sex to have sex with them, despite having long-term sexual partners. I was initially shocked, but later found out that this was, with very small exception, a common practice in western society."

Again. Rubbish. This is not a 'real' view of western society at all.
The irony is that if he had not been so prone to exaggerating the faults of western society, he could have made a reasonable case, but instead the distorted facts lead any person with a real grasp on western society to dismiss this piece.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 18 July 2008 1:49:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There seems to be some general belief, right or wrong, that human society in the 21st century is more civilized than it was in the 6th, or earlier centuries, when social rules were being appended to religious texts. For instance, in most (not all) communities today there is some degree of Government controlled welfare system for the disadvantaged, in contrast to those times.

For the “developed world” the thought that polygamy might alleviate defective aspects of current society has a whiff of the wondrous, to put it mildly.

Perhaps some elements of the legal fraternity might have enthusiasm for it. A British firefighter, with wife and children now forming a family unit, was brought before the judiciary in 2007 and found liable for the upkeep of his sperm-donor child. That was in spite of signing-off on a no-responsibility declaration at the time of his donation. Polygamous enclaves lurking illegally within the USA have given rise to unsavory litigious tangles.

In the article we hear it for polygamy. It quotes statistics in support of that, but does not have the balls to face up to modern female rights and include polyandry in discussion. Even that is also fraught with potential legal horrors. Trauma surrounding surrogate motherhood has been chilling enough.

Society in the more-developed world has enough social problems without importing concepts appropriate only to a past age. The Centre for Arabic Genomic Studies points to the fall-out from societies where women do not have equal rights to circulate in society. It quotes statistics for Saudi Arabia: generic defects in consanguineous marriage(51% of total marriages)reaches 90 per cent in some isolated communities; that 22 per thousand live babies have defects at birth, understating the problem because many such defects manifest themselves only later in development.

Polygamy, polyandry – strictly not for the birds or the boys, ever I hope, here in Australia.
Posted by colinsett, Friday, 18 July 2008 2:44:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cosmogirl, applying your logic, being a lesbian is a conditioned state, not necessarily only a naturally born state, otherwise would living in a society with moslem men cause women to become lesbians. I think you need to revisit your argument.

I also think that one woman at a time is not only as much as most men can handle, but is also as much as most women can handle. That being said, it is quite evident, in many societies, that a goodly number of males have mistresses/lovers on the side. This is not only the province of the male gender either. As evidence of this, one only has to look at the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in some countries. "The sins of the fathers are visited upon the children" and in this case, also upon the wives.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Friday, 18 July 2008 4:25:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ayub Maftoon

Well said.
Now go back to where you came from and where such scholarship is appreciated and relevant. I for one do not want to change your mind nor do I want to offer you and your type the comfort of thinking that people like me may now rush to compromise our position on polygamy to enable you to get a foothold in our secular democracy where men and women are equal before law. Our laWS ARE MADE BY OUR POPULARLY ELECTED MEMBERS.

NICE TRY,MAFTOON.BUT IT CUTS NO ICE.yOU ARE WASTING YOUR TIME.

pOLYGAMY IS SO IMPORTANT TO YOU AND MUSLIMS LIKE YOU.WE WHO HAVE LIVED IN THE UAE HAVE BEEN CLOSE ENOUGH TO SAUDI ARABIA all UAE countries AND YEMEN

to know that you lot are the world's biggest debauched hypocrites when it comes to the treatment of women.Which country has the greatest number of women in captivity? Where is the slave trade in girls the greatest?
Now try and pretend you dont know.

socratease
Posted by socratease, Friday, 18 July 2008 5:04:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I notice that Mr Ayub is using the Quran to 'instruct' us as to how his well intentioned but virtual apostate comrade Irfan 'should' be acting.

Of course Pericles and CJ and TRTL will suitably rebuke him for using 'obscure ancient documents' to make a case for modern Australian life... (or..will they?)

If Mr ayub is happy to use the Quran to justify having 4 wives.. I hope he will also be as forthcoming from the same chapter which permits a man to beat his wife... "Institutionalized domestic violence"

I hope he will also be forthcoming on the issue of divorce... and that even young children can be 'divorced'....

Then there is the matter of Mohamamad not only having set us an example with his many wives, but also his concubines.. unmarried sexual 'assistants'

All in all.. it seems to describe the "Islamic Paradise" where according to Ibn Kathir their giant of history and doctrine.. life will be perpetually deflowering virgins..

Not a bad lark if ur a bloke.. but then.. as they say.. things which seem too good to be true usually are.
Posted by Polycarp, Saturday, 19 July 2008 12:12:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't see the problem with polygamy, except that it will leave a lot of men without wives, which would be a shame. Perhaps there is a solution to that.

You people (especially Cosmogirl) realise that women who enter these relationships would do so voluntarily? Why are you so sexist? I think it must be (yet again) feminist indoctrination and brainwashing.
Posted by Steel, Saturday, 19 July 2008 1:48:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Polycarp, I can't speak for Pericles, CJ or TRTL but in my case there is a big difference between someone wishing to apply ancient docuuments to how they live their own lives and those seeking to use those documents to tell others how to live their lives.

If those involved in fundy religious faiths wich to live by just a small section of the knowledge and accumulated wisdom available to modern humanity thats their choice as long as it does not directly impose on those who do not choose to do so.

Whilst history (past and present) makes it clear that muslims are not immune to imposing the restrictions of their faith on others this is not one of those issues (expcept for the risk that some women may have their options restricted within specific communities).

When muslims behave on this forum as our resident christain fundies do I'll have no qualms about challenging them. My guess is that the posters you mentioned will do likewise.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 19 July 2008 8:17:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Very well said R0bert.

Polycarp, I could have sworn I already weighed in to criticise the exaggerations and falsehoods in this article.

Though to add another layer of criticism, where's the mention of the small towns in Australia that have far more men than women? Globally, what about the 30 million estimated surplus Chinese men, a result of gender favoritism at birth which would only be exacerbated by polygamist attitudes?

The more I think about this article, the more foolish it becomes. Maftoon attempts to justify polygamy with numbers (number I think I've reasonably shown to be misleading) but what about when the numbers flow the other way?

Would Mr Maftoon suggest that in the aforementioned small towns or in China, women be permitted multiple husbands?
Were I to believe in a creator, I'd point out that for every 100 female births, there's 104 or 105 men, perfectly suited to the slightly higher number of male fatalities and the longer lives of women (which can also be attributed to evolution). Were I to believe in a creator, it would seem a pretty conclusive vote against polygamy, because if it were encouraged, there'd be more women than men.

So on top of the misleading commentary in this article, (who honestly thinks extramarital affairs are approved of by wider society, or 'swingers' are anything more than a minority?) the stats are wrong, large chunks of information are missing and yes, it relies on superstitious religious piffle. As has been mentioned by others, living your own life in such a way is one thing, but attempting to dictate it to others is another.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Saturday, 19 July 2008 9:11:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boazycarp: << Of course Pericles and CJ and TRTL will suitably rebuke him for using 'obscure ancient documents' to make a case for modern Australian life... >>

I can't speak for anybody else, but to me Ayub Maftoon seems to be arguing for polygyny with Koranic evidence in much the same way that an honest Bretho might have argued for women's lower status in their church on the basis of a biblical "creation mandate". Of course, if anybody's deluded enough to base their contemporary values on the ancient myths and legends of various tribes of Middle Eastern goat-herders, then that's fine by me, so long as they're not trying to impose those values on everybody else.

If Ayub Maftoon wants to marry four wives simultaneously and they all want to marry him, then it's not really my business, is it? Similarly, if Bretho women want to wear their version of the hijab, or to defer to their husbands and male church elders, then what business is that of mine?

I'm more worried about Maftoon's gross misreading of our society's values with respect to married people engaging in extramarital sex. While of course it occurs relatively frequently, it is hardly "...with very small exception, a common practice in western society". Further, his references to an ancient psychology text from 1910 and a 1932 biography of Mohammed are somewhat more problematic, coming from someone who claims to be a journalist, than is his Koranic justification of polygamy.

At least he displays the courage of his screwy convictions, unlike paranoid Islamophobes who spread their fear and loathing under a variety of pseudonyms.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 19 July 2008 9:36:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The question is, why support marriage at all? If I want to cohabitate in the short or long term with two or three or four other persons of whatever gender, that is perfectly legal. It's only if I feel that I want or need the endorsement of the State or church that the concept of marriage even arises. But if I am asking an external authority to endorse my relationships, then surely that external authority has a perfect right to withhold endorsement for any reasons it deems fit. The Church has religious reasons for refusing to endorse anything but heterosexual monogamy and the State has electoral reasons. The solution is not to moan about why you can't have this or that sort of marriage, but to exclude the State or church altogether from one's personal life, and remove the remaining legal distinctions between people who are married and people who are not. "You are all individuals!" ('I'm not!' cries the would-be polygamist).
Posted by Jon J, Saturday, 19 July 2008 1:42:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have left Australia for a life in another country, and where I know family values are held supreme, and where people bread like rabbits. I live in a home with one loving wife some 30 years younger, and have kids all around me. My home is always full of music, singing, and laughter. I can’t have this in Australia.

At the various international airports I regularly pass through, I take the time to talk to fellow travelers who are doing much the same thing. This has fueled the idea that we should promote the same thing rather than let it happen virtually unnoticed. Men are leaving the country in hordes – the word is out. Who would want to live in a country where 5 men suicide every day because of family problems? This is more than the national road slaughter, and totally unrecognized by authorities.

A marketing campaign suggesting and encouraging all Australian men to “Leave” could well pressure otherwise gutless politicians to change the family climate in Australia. Not all women are lesbians, and most women would not like to see the countries men disappear one at a time to unknown destinations with further returning reports of happiness like mine. The internal feminist Pressure would surely assist to implode the fueling nucleolus which maintains the unacceptable family climate in Australia.

Bill Morris billmorrisbillmorris@yahoo.co
Posted by Poncan, Saturday, 19 July 2008 7:45:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ayub Maftoon,

Islamic "teaching" on polygamy is like -- If you are not confident of marrying 2 or 3 or 4 wives, then marry only one wife.

This is like making a two-way bet -- If you are confident then do it, otherwise don't do it.
It does not take a great thinker to make up such "teachings", does it ??

Until someone actually marries multiple wives, how can he proves he is capable of being equally fair to all the wives ??

Yet without a shame, you claimed -- "It should be noted that Koran is the only scripture that..."

well..., the only scripture that teaches such a rubbish... and yet its believers are proud of the stupid "teaching"

Listen... A godhead of great wisdom never provided such a stupid teaching. Muhammad made that up himself partly because he needed to marry multiple women to benefit himself foremost.

You wrote -- "As Muslims Mr Yusuf and myself are obliged to say the truth..."

What truth ??

Listen... Muhammad never met an angel from God. That was not a truth. That was only a lie, a deception that should have been nipped in its bud.

But instead, Muhammad's lies have been replicated through polygamous and non-polygamous believers alike, passed off as truth through generations.

You are yet another modern-day victim of Muhammad's deception. But you are doing exactly the same thing... telling people Muhammad's lies are truth...
Posted by G Z, Saturday, 19 July 2008 10:33:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Um. If, using logic as suggested in the article, does Ayub mean that in India where there are so many more males than females the females should be able to practice polygamy :)
Imagine a woman having more than 1 husband to provide an income for the family, just like a queen bee.
I do suspect though that the talk of polygamy is thought of as a male perogative.
Posted by Aka, Saturday, 19 July 2008 11:19:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aka,
The Chinese are practical people and it would not be a surprize to find that polygandry is to be a consideration to overcome the gender imbalance caused by the one child policy.

As far as we,in Aus, are concerned, i can't see official polygamy ever being lawfull even though it is far more honest than having affairs but of course having sexual relationships and parenting children outside marriage will continue.

The big loser is spouse number one which means polygamy will only work, to any extent, in societies where the female is totally subservient to the male. Personally speaking, why anyone would want more than one wife at a time is unimaginable to me.
Posted by Banjo, Sunday, 20 July 2008 10:26:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think it is reasonable for the author to point out the historical and social reasons for the practice of polygamy, but in doing so it is obvious why it is not acceptable in our modern society.

We are not living in a situation where there are too many women, despite the authors claims, as other responses have alslo pointed out. It is true that in many western countries there are slightly more women than men, but this is mainly due to the gap in life expectancy and is therefore more pronounced in older generations.

Another glaring oversight is that the obligation to marry women who have lost their male partner is only necessary in a society where women have no ability for social and financial independence or self-sufficiency, and therefore to be without a man is to be in a very perilous situation indeed. As a woman, I am glad that I am in a situation today where I do not need to find a man and hope that he will always be around to support me- I can enter into a relationship because I genuinely care for someone and want to share my life with them.

It is true that many people struggle with monogamy, and it is possible that men find it harder than women, but I don't think this is an argument for polygamy without also being an argument for polyandry. I also don't see why you would believe that a man can genuinely love more than one woman without believing that a woman can love more than one man.
Posted by la_1985, Sunday, 20 July 2008 4:04:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Quote "...hundreds of Muslim MEN were killed. Consequently, a large number of Muslim widows and girls were left without husbands or potential husbands. Therefore, as a solution to the problem of widows, orphans and unmarried girls...'

Polyagamy is a process of protecting women, or response to existing oppression of men (can you imagine no worse oppression than being expected to fight and die in war? A burden that is only expected of males)

There are virtually equal numbers of boys and girls born. So, for every second-wife, there is a man who is probably going to die young as a virgin.

What polygamy tells young men is that unless you are powerfull and rich, then you will remain childless - effectively the Male Eunuch!

The situation for girls is much better. Regardless of who you are and how attractive/well-connected you are, you will be protected , have a family, and watch your children grow up!

Watch your children grow up, compared to death? Which would you choose?

Because the maths means that for every second-wife, there is a un-wed male.

How do societies go-on being polygamous? Well, basically, the math only works if many men are either killed (and that partly explains the violence of the polygamous world), or you are too poor to support a family. So, put another way, poor women live and enjoy their families, poor men die alone.

Polygamy is male oppression, or more correctly, a society of three castes, or three classes.

1: an tiny elite of powerfull men, supporting several wives

2: All women are proteted in a sort-of comfortable a middle class; All protected, fed, clothed and able to enjoy watching their children grow.

3: a slave-class of oppressed men, too poor to support families, used as cannon-fodder in a violent society, who die alone.

Tell you what, I'm male, but given these choices, I'd rather be a woman!

In summary
There are three classes of people:
1: at the top powerfull men, who sometimes oppress
2: In the guilded cage, comfortable, protected women
3: opressed, powerless men.

PartTimeParent@pobox.com
www.fathers4equality-australia.org
Posted by partTimeParent, Monday, 21 July 2008 2:59:01 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a very puzzling piece.

I am sure that it might be in some way relevant to Muslims - I note that it is primarily directed at Irfan Yusuf - but I can't help thinking that it is entirely wasted on anyone else.

It illustrates, yet again, how religion should be kept out of government in this country.

It should not matter a fig whether an individual decides to have one, two or many wives, so long as that activity does not impinge upon the state. It should not be up to the state to mandate a limit on wives, any more than they should determine the number of children - of either sex - that a couple should have.

But since our laws - particularly in the area of welfare - were designed around monogamy, a single spouse should be the limit of the law's reach. This would also apply to same-sex couples - a limit of one partner each, please.

If you are able to afford ten wives and three dozen kids, the best of luck to you. You'll be nagged into an early grave, but that's your decision.

But don't expect this activity to be in any way state-funded.

Doesn't seem too hard to me.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 21 July 2008 4:24:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I prefer one wife only because of the love and respect I have for my one wife, and the fact that I need no more. I am Australian and a descendent from the original non convict settlers, however I choose to live in another country where there are approximately 5 times the population of Australia, and their cultural beliefs were aged and before OZ. The cultural practices here are that of polygamy, but with a difference. From my observations, the women don’t seem to mind.

It is usual here where if the husband becomes a bit fresh with his No.1 wife, she will back his bag and lunch, and send him to his girlfriend for a spell. When giving invitations for any function, one must spell out exactly the husband’s accompanying format.

I guess what I am saying is that when Governments, and all their many and various agencies try to control families, nothing will settle into any satisfactory routine where men are just that, and women are the warm wonderful, loving, and nurturing creatures they were meant to be. If they are happy to share a man – who cares?

I might also add that where I live, there is no Family Court, no Child Support, no Domestic Violence, no child care places, no old age homes etc. All this and more is taken care of by strong families with quite a cultural difference to anything even thought of by Australian Government. No Family Court Judge here is able to be swayed by expensive legal experts, and all family difficulties are settled by family elders who have an intimate knowledge of the people involved. Here, there is no divorce allowed for by law.

Reference to the modern world, or society, has me smiling when I willingly live in an old culture with all modern amenities like fast broadband, and more and better medicines than are available in Australia. I also live in predominantly a strong Catholic society where polygamy is practiced as something routine, and it all works.
Posted by Poncan, Monday, 21 July 2008 7:30:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amusing that "love" is mentioned in relation to Islamic polygamous marriages when few are based on love in the Muslim world. Most first marriage partners are selected by the parents, with no romance involved. It's likely lust is more involved in subsequent marriages than love, too.

Suggestions that gender imbalances will be "fixed" by polygamy are ridiculous. As has been pointed out by others, some women are gay and don't need or want a male partner (and unlike Muslim countries are allowed to follow their chosen lifestyle). Indeed, a proportion of men are gay and don't need or require female partners. The Islamic treatment of sex means that in many countries, young boys are preyed on because there are no females available.
Posted by viking13, Monday, 21 July 2008 10:02:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poncan, please let us know where you are so that we may join you in this Utopia.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 11:00:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

Please contact me on my direct email billmorrisbillmorris@yahoo.com for answers.
Posted by Poncan, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 11:18:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When I saw the article, I thought I might find a different perspective on a contraversial topic, but all I found was this steaming pile of drivel.

Spouting quotes from clerics dating back to 1932 and sexual attitudes prior to that is about as well thought out and balanced as shouting "Israel must die"

Please don't publish tripe like this again.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 11:36:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
a rich man can support several women in comfort, a poor man can not support even one.

if a woman prefers to be the comfortable 4th wife of a rich man rather than starve alone or with a poor man, why not let her have this choice, with legal support?
Posted by DEMOS, Friday, 25 July 2008 11:05:24 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author obviously had to delve a long way back within the modern historical period to find a female supporter of polygamy. I'm not surprised. I doubt many thinking females would tolerate the practice, and I'm surprised, apart from a few exceptions, at the lack of strong condemnation in the comments here, though I note the majority of contributors are male which probably explains it.

The practice of polygamy is totally unfair and degrading toward women. Those in Poncan's paradise who according to him seem quite happy with the practice have grown up with it and know no other way. Women brought up in Western societies today quite rightly grow up believing their status to be equal to that of men's. Even though the reality is still far different for many, they would not tolerate, nor should they, having to share their power base within a stable heterosexual relationship with other women, while the male partner within the relationship makes no such concession.

The practice of polygamy plays right into the hands of those who believe in a patriarchal society. It should be exposed for the male power play it truly represents and denounced completely before it gains any further traction.
Posted by Bronwyn, Friday, 25 July 2008 2:24:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Polygamy is not degrading to women at all. Unfortunately this is feminist/misandrist agenda.

If anyone chooses to enter partnerships in such a means, that is COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY. Does anyone understand this? Particularly you Bronwyn/ Do you see the problem with feminism yet? The only problem for society then that must be addressed is that some men will not be able to marry (assuming women voluntarily do this more). There may be many solutions to that problem.

Let me repeat. Anyone who enters such a partnership would be doing so voluntarily through their own choices. To deny them their voluntary choice, or tell them that they do not know what they want and impose your view onto their choices, is simply fraudulent.......or, as Bronwyn and others have shown, mainstream feminist policy.

Here feminists have actually become anti-women's liberation themselves by denying women their free choices. And even Bronwyn is a self-professed moderate feminist...being tricked into hating women who choose to live in such a way and denying them their free choice.

How can feminism deny women their free choices? This is a large part of the history of feminism sadly. Deceit and lies that becomes mainstream policy. Feminists did this with pornography and censorship over the last couple of decades and we have seen continuing episodic instances presented as 'respectable feminism' right here on OLO.
Posted by Steel, Friday, 25 July 2008 4:15:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steel, what you say would only be accurate if multiple husbands for a single wife are an option as well.

Free choice, and all that.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 25 July 2008 5:23:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steel – you got there before I did. Bronwyn is typical of the attitude amongst women now especially in Australia.

Again I refer to where I am positioned in the world and where feminism hasn’t yet infected it’s good citizens. Women here have absolutely freedom of choice. There are women in all walks of life. My own Bank manager is a woman, my dentist is a woman, and a dam good one. My wife just chooses to be a wife and mother, and she is also a good one.

I have taken my wife to Australia twice, and she can not relate to the women there. Some women in a matter of weeks tried to convince her to leave me and make the good life in OZ. I travel to OZ often, but she will not come with me now because of this strange and horrible attitude Australian women have.

All I can say to you Bronwyn is that it is people with attitudes like yours that has taken a great country severely backwards. It is partly this reason that now one million Australian nationals now live overseas. This is the attitude that is forcing 5 good Australian men to suicide every day. Not to mention the destruction of the family unit and the hopeless family law system.

Yes – I do live in paradise in comparison, and where there are real women without this feminist disease. Some were before me, and many others following.
Posted by Poncan, Friday, 25 July 2008 5:28:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TLTR, of course..... I never intended to give an impression, eg. "some men will not be able to marry (assuming women voluntarily do this more)"
Posted by Steel, Friday, 25 July 2008 5:40:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steel

"Let me repeat. Anyone who enters such a partnership would be doing so voluntarily through their own choices."

Some might enter such an arrangement voluntarily, but many too would have it imposed on them against their will.

"To deny them their voluntary choice, or tell them that they do not know what they want and impose your view onto their choices, is simply fraudulent.......or, as Bronwyn and others have shown, mainstream feminist policy."

What of the choice of women who entered into a mutual relationship in good faith, only to find many years later they were to share their partner with a younger woman? What of the longstanding choice they made? Doesn't that count for anything in your eyes?

You accuse me of attempting to deny people choice. Yet you're arguing for a system that would clearly give choice to men at the expense of the choice of women. I'm for choice as much as you are, but it has to be choice for all not just a select few.

Poncan

"All I can say to you Bronwyn is that it is people with attitudes like yours that has taken a great country severely backwards. It is partly this reason that now one million Australian nationals now live overseas. This is the attitude that is forcing 5 good Australian men to suicide every day."

I suggest you recant this pathetic accusation.
Posted by Bronwyn, Saturday, 26 July 2008 12:23:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Funny, I don't see anything overtly "feminist" in Bronwyn's posts, and despite being a middle-aged rural male don't see "feminism" dominating Australian life, with the main exception being Family Court (where most of the judges are male!).

I find it laughable that Steel would think that polygamy, especially as practiced by Muslims, is in any way "voluntary". It's also sad that despite the supposed values of "equal rights for women", feminists are utterly silent on the plight of women in Islam. The loudest voices raised against Islamic practices appear to be coming from within the Islamic world itself, from women who'd not be described as "feminists" except by mysoginist Muslim males.

Polygamy is to be opposed in this country for one of many reasons, my chief objection being that the proponents are almost invariable Muslim, and frequently on benefits, with large broods. The idea of some old, fat welfare recipient like Keysar Trad starting another vast family at my and others' expense when we're already supporting one brood is too horrible to contemplate.

It appears that Mr Trad did indeed wish to take a second wife. It's interesting that his first wife objected despite Islamic sanction. Others have suggested it before, but it's worth repeating: if Mt Trad desires a second or subsequent wife he should return to the Islamic paradise whence he came. But maybe not- only rich men can have more than one wife, since there is no welfare state propping up randy bludgers.
Posted by viking13, Saturday, 26 July 2008 12:10:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That is such biased bull!@#$ i'm simply amazed. Your comment flys in the face of logic and basic reational thought processes.

How many forced marriages are conducted in Australia? Exactly. Islam is absolutely and categorically IRRELEVANT to polygamy as it would be in Australia. In fact it's a fallacy.

Also those comments about men are just baldly sexist.
Posted by Steel, Sunday, 27 July 2008 3:05:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Viking13- G’day mate. I’m a country bloke also. It is obvious that you haven’t yet been the recipient of Family Law justice in Australia. Who are administering the joke called family law? – not blokes Mate. Also have a look at all associated family services – mostly all women. Have a look at the numbers working their way through law in our universities – almost all women. This is frightening. How many men teachers do we have – these are the people educating our kids.

Bronwyn, this is feminist arrogance at its worst. To suggest that you have a fix for the women of another country who are already free, have better family and moral values, and free from feminist, sexist ideals, is beyond belief. Even our head of state here is a woman. Feminine is the word here. I hope one day they lock the gates and keep all your type, and the disease you carry, in OZ. You won’t get an apology or withdrawal out of me.

Sorry – my numbers for contributions are up for a few days.
Posted by Poncan, Sunday, 27 July 2008 11:27:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poncan, G'day to you. Actually, I have been involved with the Family Court and "Family Services". They are biased against men as you suggest and to which I alluded in my last post. This is one area where feminism has gone overboard- another is the issuing of AVOs to women on the flimsiest of evidence (while noting that AVOs are indeed needed by many women, and even men). This doesn't gainsay my belief that woman are the equal of men in most areas (women can be superior in others), and there are areas where the rights of women still lag, none more so than in the Muslim world, which attitudes are being imported into this country. Hence my asking what the "feminists" were doing for Muslim women.

I'm married to an Asian woman and while they can be the most wonderful people on the planet, there are times when shyness and lack of assertiveness can be trying- no that I long for the brashness and arrogance of say, an American. While Americans can hardly be accused of "hiding their light under a bushel" Asian women tend to bury the light a metre down.
Posted by viking13, Sunday, 27 July 2008 11:59:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poncan

"Bronwyn, this is feminist arrogance at its worst. To suggest that you have a fix for the women of another country who are already free, have better family and moral values, and free from feminist, sexist ideals, is beyond belief."

I made no suggestion at all about how the women where you are should live their lives. My only reference to them was to state that the reason they accept polygamy, as you claim they do, is because they have grown up with it and it's the only way they know. It wasn't a value judgement and it certainly wasn't any kind of directive. If they're happy, that's fine by me. Of course, to know if they're truly happy, I would have to ask them rather than your good self.

I find it ironic that you're accusing me of trying to impose my values onto people from another culture, and yet you yourself are attempting to impose the cultural practices of people from another country onto the women of Australia.

No, Poncan, I wouldn't really have expected you to withdraw the arrogant and defamatory remarks you've made. I've heard enough from you now to know that acknowledging a mistake, let alone rectifying it or heaven forbid apologising for it, would be totally out of character.
Posted by Bronwyn, Sunday, 27 July 2008 2:41:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm really not convinced that the Family Court's decisions are influenced by feminism.

Anyone who's dealt with the FC knows that it finds in favour of women almost exclusively, and daily gives custody of children to unfit mothers over competent fathers. But that's hardly feminism - it's just traditionalism. Women are perceived as the nurturing sex in all cultures, and if there's uncertainty in a custody case, even an old-school misogynist judge is likely to give kids to their mothers.
Posted by Sancho, Sunday, 27 July 2008 3:39:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To respond to certain posters:

Poncan claims to be in a polygamous place based on a form of Christianity. He then extols its virtues, with no mention of the downsides.

I'm of the belief that almost everything of significance has upsides and downsides, and when you're told only the benefits, then you're only being told half the story and the information should not be taken at face value.

I see no mention of the inevitable problems this would cause, which leads me to believe they are severe, given that you're concealing them. Well, to be honest I probably wouldn't have believed you anyway. I suppose in asking for both sides of an argument, I should have the honesty to tell you that I think your argument is codswallop.

I don't see Bronwyn's argument as being overtly feminist, especially given that Maftoon's argument doesn't make any concession for polygamist relationships where women have multiple partners. So yes, I think the article can be dismissed as discriminatory, not based upon 'feminism' per se, but simple 'equalism' (okay, I'd normally use feminism, but there appears to be an often irrational reaction to this particular word).

Actually, the main reason why this article offends me isn't because it argues on behalf of something I vehemently disagree with - I read those all the time. This one offends me because it's blatantly inaccurate if not downright deceitful, the examples of which I've already listed. It annoys me in particular because anyone with a passing acquaintance with real western living, as opposed to the stereotyped negative view of westerners knows that it's a lie, but those who haven't lived in the west won't.
So, it's excellent fodder for misleading people into disliking western society based on the lies and half-truths of those who have visited and only seen the negatives that they want to believe in order to confirm the negative preconception they'd already formulated

It's then used to argue in favour of polygamy, and instead of using valid arguments, it attempts to demean the frequency and legitimacy of western monogamy so it can promote polygamy.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 28 July 2008 6:10:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I’m back!

Sancho: I have researched this matter closely and find that all Government Family services have been set up as a Federal Government response to the United Nations charter that OZ is signatory to. One needs to read carefully that charter, and the reports made to the UN by our Federal Attorney General to believe it. Australians do not know what is going on behind their backs. This would be one of the most feminist, sexist supporting documents I have ever read. It would probably apply to some African countries, but certainly not Australia.

Bronwyn: You have an invitation from my wife and myself to come and stay at our home and look at what I am talking about personally. Our home is all women and my family here all girls. My neighbor is the principal of a school and a woman. Not a sniff of feminism anywhere. This is a seriously genuine offer so you can report back to this forum – bring your husband – we only laugh a lot here.

TRTL: I did not say I lived in an area, polygamous based on a form of Christianity. I said that it is all around me here and it all seems to work in harmony - meaning from my observations. It does not suit me, but then as I have been explaining, here all are free to live their lives the way they feel suits them. To see a man, wife, and 2 girlfriends with a mob of children sitting in Church together defies even my imagination, but if they are all happy, who cares. Why don’t you support Bronwyn to come and visit me and wait for the report?
Posted by Poncan, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 6:03:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy