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.

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.

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.

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?