Promoting polygamy: a different approach

[Isabella]

Funny, I was just reading about a documentary which examined the lives of two young girls who were hospitalised from childhood in an institution for the mentally ill, their only visitor was their mother and when she died they had no visitors, they did not have Xmas presents, birthday cards, no gifts, no calls nothing. Their parents believed they brought shame to the family because the popular eugenic movement said the 'imbeciles' were a sign of bad blood.

Those girls were Nerissa and Katherine Bowes-Lyon one of the foremost noble families in Scotland and cousins to the present Queen. Class is meaningless because it is no implication of intelligence or ability. It certainly offers no guarantee of healthy issue. Wealth and Class are not the same thing. Some of the most productive people throughout history have come from humble origins or at the very least, middling folk.

Throwing around words like Class without full knowledge seriously weakens your argument.

B

 

[Anonymous]

Funny, I was just reading about a documentary which examined the lives of two young girls who were hospitalised from childhood in an institution for the mentally ill, their only visitor was their mother and when she died they had no visitors, they did not have Xmas presents, birthday cards, no gifts, no calls nothing. Their parents believed they brought shame to the family because the popular eugenic movement said the 'imbeciles' were a sign of bad blood.

Those girls were Nerissa and Katherine Bowes-Lyon one of the foremost noble families in Scotland and cousins to the present Queen. Class is meaningless because it is no implication of intelligence or ability. It certainly offers no guarantee of healthy issue. Wealth and Class are not the same thing. Some of the most productive people throughout history have come from humble origins or at the very least, middling folk.

Throwing around words like Class without full knowledge seriously weakens your argument.

B

Well said, Isabella!

 

[lights12]

I wish we had a "like" button on here for Isabella' post!!!!

 

[Diener]

Hundreds of years ago it was considered that the upper class were ONLY those that were of "royal" or "noble" blood. As we all know, royal blood was often poisoned by incest and perpetuated genetic defects in an effort to keep the bloodline "pure".

In the 1400's the idea of upper class had began to include the Merchant class, since they had a way to make money that wasn't dependant on inheriting it. It was still a long road toward the Merchant class being accepted as "upper class", since there were still strong prejudices in place that dictated that the only "upper class" were those that had "old money".

I think in this post the idea is not that incestuous bloodlines should reproduce, but that the people smart enough to make a killing in the real world should reproduce. While I agree that the archaic sense of the word refers to royalty, people seldom define it that way these days, especially here in the U.S. Here, the upper class would include Bill Gates, Henry Ford, Walt Disney, John Rockefeller, Warren Buffett, etc. EL's post isn't way off base. The secular argument is valid.

I will say, however, that I don't think God cares one bit about someone's intelligence or ability to make money. Just read the Bible and it will become clear:

1 Corinthians 1:
26Remember, dear brothers and sisters, that few of you were wise in the world’s eyes or powerful or wealthy when God called you. 27Instead, God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful. 28God chose things despised by the world, things counted as nothing at all, and used them to bring to nothing what the world considers important. 29As a result, no one can ever boast in the presence of God.

God cares nothing about class. Praise God!

 

[EnchantedLife]

The middle class values knowledge and learning, but mainly to pursue a career. The upper class values property and good management, and also knowledge as a means of understanding the world.

Jane Austen was familiar with the English gentry, which is at the bottom end of the upper class range. Young ladies at that social level were under pressure, then and now, to marry up, and marry for money, and this pressure drove Austen’s plots.

I am taking a purely secular approach to polygamy. Women have more economic independence now, but if polygamy were legal, women would decide which men would be allowed to be polygamous and which not. Consider Austen’s novel Pride and Prejudice. Elizabeth Bennett and her sisters talk among themselves about the merits and demerits of the eligible bachelors available to them. All young ladies of that social level hoped to marry both for love and money. Elizabeth and Jane are clever, sensible young ladies, the younger sisters less so.

Suppose polygamy had been legal in Regency England. If only one eligible bachelor seemed to have promise, Elizabeth and Jane could have offered themselves to this young man as an instant harem. Fascinating to wonder what Jane Austen would have thought of such an idea.

Young ladies at that social level who are silly and frivolous will judge badly and drop out of the gentry, by their own actions. Then and now. Young women of the middle class who believe that social classes do not exist, and that ability and intelligence are distributed at random throughout society, exclude themselves from the upper class by their own actions. Silly, frivolous young men of the upper class who squander their inherited wealth also drop out of the upper class by their own actions. This startling phenomenon is presumably having a slow genetic effect on society.

Polygamy, Christian or otherwise, can fit into this picture. I recommend an ingenious TV miniseries, Lost in Austen, where Amanda Price, a clever, irrepressible young woman from contemporary London discovers a time warp, and enters Regency England, but an England where the novel Pride and Prejudice actually comes to life. If polygamy were legal, I can see lots of clever, savvy Amandas gatecrashing the contemporary upper class by offering themselves as polygamous wives.

This suggests a two way pump, allowing the upper class to pump in Amanda Prices and pump out (and exclude) the silly and frivolous. This startling phenomenon might ultimately lead to a two class society, the upper class, and the silly and frivolous in a lower class.

 

[Isabella]

. This startling phenomenon is presumably having a slow genetic effect on society.

There is zero evidence for this statement and the rest is stuff and nonsense, I really don't see your point.

Do you realise you are using fictional characters to back up your premise? Even Jane Austen her self did not have the kind of life she wrote about, she died a spinster. BTW, Lost in Austen was a terrible mini series.

B

 

[blugrniz4u]

The middle class values knowledge and learning, but mainly to pursue a career. The upper class values property and good management, and also knowledge as a means of understanding the world.

Wow.

 

[Isabella]

The middle class values knowledge and learning, but mainly to pursue a career. The upper class values property and good management, and also knowledge as a means of understanding the world.

Wow.

I know.

 

[CecilW]

The middle class values knowledge and learning, but mainly to pursue a career. The upper class values property and good management, and also knowledge as a means of understanding the world.

Then Ah'm clearly Upper-Middle class 'cause I value alla dat!

But da REAL reason Ah pursue knowledge all ober da place is because I's just Curious George! :roll: :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

The middle class values knowledge and learning, but mainly to pursue a career. The upper class values property and good management, and also knowledge as a means of understanding the world.

Your hypothesis is inherently faulty....

 

[lights12]

The middle class values knowledge and learning, but mainly to pursue a career. The upper class values property and good management, and also knowledge as a means of understanding the world.

Jane Austen was familiar with the English gentry, which is at the bottom end of the upper class range. Young ladies at that social level were under pressure, then and now, to marry up, and marry for money, and this pressure drove Austen’s plots.

I am taking a purely secular approach to polygamy. Women have more economic independence now, but if polygamy were legal, women would decide which men would be allowed to be polygamous and which not. Consider Austen’s novel Pride and Prejudice. Elizabeth Bennett and her sisters talk among themselves about the merits and demerits of the eligible bachelors available to them. All young ladies of that social level hoped to marry both for love and money. Elizabeth and Jane are clever, sensible young ladies, the younger sisters less so.

Suppose polygamy had been legal in Regency England. If only one eligible bachelor seemed to have promise, Elizabeth and Jane could have offered themselves to this young man as an instant harem. Fascinating to wonder what Jane Austen would have thought of such an idea.

Young ladies at that social level who are silly and frivolous will judge badly and drop out of the gentry, by their own actions. Then and now. Young women of the middle class who believe that social classes do not exist, and that ability and intelligence are distributed at random throughout society, exclude themselves from the upper class by their own actions. Silly, frivolous young men of the upper class who squander their inherited wealth also drop out of the upper class by their own actions. This startling phenomenon is presumably having a slow genetic effect on society.

Polygamy, Christian or otherwise, can fit into this picture. I recommend an ingenious TV miniseries, Lost in Austen, where Amanda Price, a clever, irrepressible young woman from contemporary London discovers a time warp, and enters Regency England, but an England where the novel Pride and Prejudice actually comes to life. If polygamy were legal, I can see lots of clever, savvy Amandas gatecrashing the contemporary upper class by offering themselves as polygamous wives.

This suggests a two way pump, allowing the upper class to pump in Amanda Prices and pump out (and exclude) the silly and frivolous. This startling phenomenon might ultimately lead to a two class society, the upper class, and the silly and frivolous in a lower class.

What are you talking about?????? You are joking right??? Who is supposed to be the judge of who are the Amanda Prices and who are the silly and frivolous???? You know what, I'm really not getting your point at all!!!!

 

[EnchantedLife]

Extraordinary. If you read my post, you will notice that if polygamy becomes legal, then women will judge which men are to be polygamous. Repeat, women will judge which men are to be polygamous. There will be no judge somewhere at the top of society, because there will be no need. Plain English. If a silly, frivolous young man is born to great wealth and squanders the wealth and drops back to a lower soclal level, he does so by his own actions. Repeat, by his own actions. Why is this hard to understand?

The economist Greg Clark recently wrote a book A Farewell to Alms, which starts by discussing international aid, hence the title, then branches off on to an analysis of the English gentry Middle Ages to about 1800. His analysis has influenced my thinking, because he proposed that ownership of property can act as a mechanism for evolutionary selection pressure to operate, over centuries, in society. I leave other historians to examine the historical data. I had a previously assumed that people in society breed largely at random. I was also influenced by my observations of the foolish actions of a wealthy young Australian, Warwick Fairfax, during the 1987 stock market crash.

There may be other mechansims for long term genetic selection in society other than property, of course, but I do not know of any.

I will have to leave it at that.

 

[Anonymous]

Extraordinary. If you read my post, you will notice that if polygamy becomes legal, then women will judge which men are to be polygamous. Repeat, women will judge which men are to be polygamous. There will be no judge somewhere at the top of society, because there will be no need. Plain English. If a silly, frivolous young man is born to great wealth and squanders the wealth and drops back to a lower soclal level, he does so by his own actions. Repeat, by his own actions. Why is this hard to understand?

The economist Greg Clark recently wrote a book A Farewell to Alms, which starts by discussing international aid, hence the title, then branches off on to an analysis of the English gentry Middle Ages to about 1800. His analysis has influenced my thinking, because he proposed that ownership of property can act as a mechanism for evolutionary selection pressure to operate, over centuries, in society. I leave other historians to examine the historical data. I had a previously assumed that people in society breed largely at random. I was also influenced by my observations of the foolish actions of a wealthy young Australian, Warwick Fairfax, during the 1987 stock market crash.

There may be other mechansims for long term genetic selection in society other than property, of course, but I do not know of any.

I will have to leave it at that.

Quite bizarre !

 

[Isabella]

Quite bizarre !

Bizarre, nonsensical and simplistic...the idea that complex social and economic ills can be solved by young posh women "deciding themselves" to become second and subsequent wives is laughable. I have no idea why the OP insists on pushing this ridiculous theory stubbornly ignoring all the negative commentary. It is madness.

B

 

[CecilW]

I have no idea why the OP insists on pushing this ridiculous theory stubbornly ignoring all the negative commentary. It is madness.

What is madness, Bels? The theory or pushing it despite the negative comments?

Does the fact that we don't LIKE it make it not viable? He is, after all, specifically defining class as a function of ability to acquire and retain wealth, as opposed to a function of heredity alone.

Neither is he saying tat laws would enforce his idea -- only that young ladies would tend to follow the money, a not unreasonable expectation.

Some years ago, a young lady and I were talking, but I was out of work at the moment. Despite the fact that I had been gainfully employed and had raised a family, and there was no reason to figure I would not be again, she looked at my present circumstances and said, "No." 'Loved' me, but 'No'. Some time later, still in straightened circumstances, another young lady came along and, I guess, decided we'd get along somehow and stayed. Sure 'nuff, we did. Finances have been way up and way down since, but we're still together.

My point is simply that, even among us lower financial classes, money following DOES occur. So who knows? The OP's theory might carry weight in a general sense. I'm reminded of a section in freakonomics that talks about the drop in violent crime ini the 90s? Not sure of the details, it has been a long time. But noted that it came about 14-20 years after abortion became legal -- an option disproportionately chosen by those in an economic class whose offspring disproportionately grew up to become violent criminals. Historical fact, and logical inference. Distasteful or not.

So who knows. I think I'm going to just conclude that this is an interesting theory, and leave it there. Got money to make, to elevate me and my patient wife into a higher financial class. *grin*

 

[Isabella]

What is madness, Bels? The theory or pushing it despite the negative comments?

If a theory is based upon a simplistic premise, it is madness, note that I am not objecting to the general idea that women prefer men who appear to be able to provide for them but I object to the following statements:

The upper class is the most capable and most intelligent class in society.....

Accordingly, upper class men should be polygamous, and upper class women should be ashamed of opposing polygamy.

............ Polygamy does not apply to the average Jack and Jill, ....
...............Polygamy in the upper class improves society, and upper class men have a duty to be polygamous, and upper class women have a duty to accept sister wives. ... .This startling phenomenon is presumably having a slow genetic effect on society.

Which advocates social engineering and a certain amount of pressure, if not force (of existing wives, (not girls choosing to be subsequent wives). Not only has any sort of social engineering failed and failed badly in the history of the 20thc. but there is no way that anyone can advocate that Polygamy can only be reserved for the wealthy. Nor should anyone be obligated to be so just because they are wealthy, that is not a hallmark of a healthy society or relationships. Not to mention the genetic statement is completely bogus and not backed up by any valid research.

B

 

[CecilW]

Hmmm. Just for the fun of arguing with you ...

Many societies have had a version of this in place with a stable mistress system. And the children of such mistresses often WERE above average in intelligence and did well.

Of course, Pearl Buck in The Good Earth quotes a Chinese proverb something to the effect of "3 generations, soil to soil", meaning that by the end of the 3rd generation from the one that made the fortune, the family is most likely to be back to farming for a living having lost it. Wives, mistresses, or not.

So, it seems like an interesting theory, with no way but years of observation to tell if valid or not.

Though I also see your other points. There is no reason for PM to NOT apply to the average Jack, Jill, and June. They may very well do better economically as one family rather than two.

 

[Isabella]

Though I also see your other points. There is no reason for PM to NOT apply to the average Jack, Jill, and June. They may very well do better economically as one family rather than two.

Yes, very true.

 

[blugrniz4u]

What is madness, Bels? The theory or pushing it despite the negative comments?

If a theory is based upon a simplistic premise, it is madness, note that I am not objecting to the general idea that women prefer men who appear to be able to provide for them but I object to the following statements:

The upper class is the most capable and most intelligent class in society.....

Accordingly, upper class men should be polygamous, and upper class women should be ashamed of opposing polygamy.

............ Polygamy does not apply to the average Jack and Jill, ....
...............Polygamy in the upper class improves society, and upper class men have a duty to be polygamous, and upper class women have a duty to accept sister wives. ... .This startling phenomenon is presumably having a slow genetic effect on society.

Which advocates social engineering and a certain amount of pressure, if not force (of existing wives, (not girls choosing to be subsequent wives). Not only has any sort of social engineering failed and failed badly in the history of the 20thc. but there is no way that anyone can advocate that Polygamy can only be reserved for the wealthy. Nor should anyone be obligated to be so just because they are wealthy, that is not a hallmark of a healthy society or relationships. Not to mention the genetic statement is completely bogus and not backed up by any valid research.

B

Agree with Bels, Fairlight, and Lights.

 

[ylop]

Your hypothesis is inherently faulty....

EL's hypothesis is not clearly stated; however EL's combined posts contain many elements of truth; and cannot be simply rejected as a whole.

In human history, polygamy has been for the rich and powerful; and it has enabled them to enhance their reproductive success. There are genetic studies to back this up.

In the modern world, to me it seems many of the rich and powerful are not interested in reproduction; and in view of the possible negative consequences of polygamy in event of divorce; I think most of them would simply choose to have mistresses.

ylop