(no subject)
In my reading today, I came across this article, on AlterNet. Before I talk about the article I just want to say a word in support of AlterNet. They are an independent new source that publishes articles on topics that are often overlooked or sugar-coated in the mainstream media. Some of the work is original and some is used with permission from other sources. The problems that I have with this particular article are in no way a reflection on AlterNet as a whole. I would highly encourage anyone to make their site a regular source of news.
That said, I was very disturbed by this article. For those who don't click the link, it's an article written in response to the Warren Jeffs case. If there's anyone out there who doesn't know about this, try reading the paper or listening to the news every once in awhile. Warren Jeffs is the leader of the radical sect known as the Fundamentalist LDS church. Among other things they practice polygamy, marrying off their very young girls to often much older men who are frequently close relatives. It's not unheard of for a girl to marry a first cousin, and this case in particular deals with just such a marriage. A fourteen year old girl was married to her nineteen year old cousin. She has testified that she didn't want to get married, but was told by Jeffs that her only way to salvation was through her husband and if she didn't marry him she would be barred from heaven. She further testifies that she refused to have sex with her husband and sought the council of Jeffs who told her that she must submit to him to avoid damnation. The state has charged Jeffs as an accessory to rape. The very end of the article aruges that this is unlikely to stick for a number of reasons. The most prominent of these is the failure of the state to charge the husband. I don't have an problem with their reporting of any of these facts. I think it's an important case, and a truly horrific issue. My problem is with the editorializing they do on the subject of plural marriages.
Highlighted, is this quote: "The view of polygamy as just another lifestyle choice has been countered by the growing evidence of communities rife with abuse," and it is this quote that encapsulates my issues. The story goes out of it's way to talk about how women's rights activists fought against polygamy when it was first criminalized in this country, likening it to slavery. Then it very dismissively says that women of the FLDS church have described themselves as empowered, and taking an almost sarcastic tone speaks of the last few decades' tendency to reserve judgment on the activity of consenting adults. All followed by this quote.
Here's the problem. I'm one of those people who essentially thinks anything is fine between consenting adults. This case isn't a case of something that happened between consenting adults. This is a case about a fourteen year old girl being forced to marry her adult cousin and then have sex with him. The two are in no way similar, but this article makes it appear that this is the inevitable conclusion of polygamy. I'm not a polygamist. At the moment, I'm entirely single, and I actually find it extraordinarily unlikely that I would ever consent to being in a relationship with one man and multiple women. It's really only marginally more likely that I would ever be involved in a relationship with multiple men, but that doesn't make either an invalid choice. To say that polygamy, and the implication of all polyamorous relationships, is equal to the circumstances in this case is the same as saying that all 2 person heterosexual marriages are equal to the horrific situation described here. Neither is representative of the relationship type.
"Communities rife with abuse," don't counter the belief that polygamy or polyandry or any other polyamorous relationship are simply another lifestyle choice. They point out the dark side of this particular relationship style. If you want to see the dark side of heterosexual 2 participant marriages, visit any shelter for battered women or pick up the newspaper any day of the week and count the number of domestic disturbance calls that the police have been on. The bad acts of a minority of people do not make an entire idea evil or wrong. I think less of this writer for implying that they do.
That said, I was very disturbed by this article. For those who don't click the link, it's an article written in response to the Warren Jeffs case. If there's anyone out there who doesn't know about this, try reading the paper or listening to the news every once in awhile. Warren Jeffs is the leader of the radical sect known as the Fundamentalist LDS church. Among other things they practice polygamy, marrying off their very young girls to often much older men who are frequently close relatives. It's not unheard of for a girl to marry a first cousin, and this case in particular deals with just such a marriage. A fourteen year old girl was married to her nineteen year old cousin. She has testified that she didn't want to get married, but was told by Jeffs that her only way to salvation was through her husband and if she didn't marry him she would be barred from heaven. She further testifies that she refused to have sex with her husband and sought the council of Jeffs who told her that she must submit to him to avoid damnation. The state has charged Jeffs as an accessory to rape. The very end of the article aruges that this is unlikely to stick for a number of reasons. The most prominent of these is the failure of the state to charge the husband. I don't have an problem with their reporting of any of these facts. I think it's an important case, and a truly horrific issue. My problem is with the editorializing they do on the subject of plural marriages.
Highlighted, is this quote: "The view of polygamy as just another lifestyle choice has been countered by the growing evidence of communities rife with abuse," and it is this quote that encapsulates my issues. The story goes out of it's way to talk about how women's rights activists fought against polygamy when it was first criminalized in this country, likening it to slavery. Then it very dismissively says that women of the FLDS church have described themselves as empowered, and taking an almost sarcastic tone speaks of the last few decades' tendency to reserve judgment on the activity of consenting adults. All followed by this quote.
Here's the problem. I'm one of those people who essentially thinks anything is fine between consenting adults. This case isn't a case of something that happened between consenting adults. This is a case about a fourteen year old girl being forced to marry her adult cousin and then have sex with him. The two are in no way similar, but this article makes it appear that this is the inevitable conclusion of polygamy. I'm not a polygamist. At the moment, I'm entirely single, and I actually find it extraordinarily unlikely that I would ever consent to being in a relationship with one man and multiple women. It's really only marginally more likely that I would ever be involved in a relationship with multiple men, but that doesn't make either an invalid choice. To say that polygamy, and the implication of all polyamorous relationships, is equal to the circumstances in this case is the same as saying that all 2 person heterosexual marriages are equal to the horrific situation described here. Neither is representative of the relationship type.
"Communities rife with abuse," don't counter the belief that polygamy or polyandry or any other polyamorous relationship are simply another lifestyle choice. They point out the dark side of this particular relationship style. If you want to see the dark side of heterosexual 2 participant marriages, visit any shelter for battered women or pick up the newspaper any day of the week and count the number of domestic disturbance calls that the police have been on. The bad acts of a minority of people do not make an entire idea evil or wrong. I think less of this writer for implying that they do.