Re: [UUPoly-L] Poly reality

[polyfi@comcast.net]

>>From: "Fantine" <fantine@sonic.net> 
> This (indirectly) is the best argument yet for joining 
> forces with other polygamous groups: simply because 
> they outnumber us worldwide. 
> 
> Now, if they only recognized and supported us! 
> Doubtful. 


Has anyone ever asked them?  But, you are probably right, Moslem Mullah, and the Heads of the OLD Mormon churches, would not support polyamory, as we define it, becausse most of them would see it as "unstable", anti-family, and promiscuous.  The fact that women in polyamory are often "leaders" and considered equal, if not superior to their mates, would be another reason, patriachial-directed groups could not fully endorse polyamory. 


However, there have been some stanger "bed-fellows" in history.  I.e, FDB (democractic) and Stalin (Tyrant), or Hitler Pro-Aryan) and Hirohito (not Aryan).  I mean, many time people on opposite ends of poles can come together for their common survival.  


> Although we share form with them (multiple 
> relationships), I think there is another issue that 
> separates us. The *spirit* of most polygyny is 
> patriarchy; the *spirit* of polyamory is equality of 
> partners. When one has multiple polyamorous partners, 
> one reciprocally extends the right of the partners also 
> to have multiple partners (sometimes of both sexes). 
> The reciprocity and equality are not features of 
> polygyny as I know of it, and this belies the civil 
> rights of the multiple wives. There is more a tendency 
> for the central male to consider he *owns* his wives. 


And, here I'd say, to each there own.  We don't want to be like them, and they dont want to be like us.  Our spirit is not there spirit.  So what?   Reminds me of President Bush, saying he wants to bring "Democracy to the world."  Well, the USA as a pioneer in democracy, also once allowed slavery, and did not give women equal rights.  Today, Iran is the most democratic Moslem state in the world, according to one news report I heard, yet they are anti-American.  Democracy helped bring Hitler to power, and Napoleon was elected in several elections in France long ago.  I mean, just because "democracy" can be bad, does that mean we cannot support it, and must reject it?


> I find it hard to support patriarchy in any form. And 
> I believe it would be hard for most proponents of 
> patriarchal systems to view us as cohorts. The 
> religiously inspired ones merely see us as 
> abominations. I do not envision any coalition of 
> forces for the furtherance of civil rights. 
> Francesca 


That's fine.  But, I can't envision modern polyamory coming into greater acceptance either, unless first we tolerate, and allow legal plural marriages, of all forms.  One husband and three wifes, or three wifes and one husband.  You can't ban one, without banning the other.  You can't do away with patriarchial values either, IMO, when so many women are the strongest advocates of it.  


The USA Congress today, they are trying to revive the ERA Amendment (Equal Rights for Women).  Surprisingly,  out of 11 Democratic women in the Senate, 4  have NOT signed on as co-signers of this amendment.  Why?  Senator Claire McCaskill said she felt that it is too devisive, and we need to avoid this battle now, in order to accomplish other things.  Well, same principle here in regards to ONE brand (definition) of polyamory, versus another brand of polyamory.  We need to find commonalities to join with others, and try to avoid the differences that split us, IMO.
Dave