Why patriarchy implies polygyny?

[MichaelZ]

I'm reading the book "Man and Woman in Biblical Law" and have a question.

Can anyone explain more clearly to the logic of this:

If polygamy (polygyny) is a logical affirmation of male headship, then the denial of the legitimacy of polygyny constitutes a denial of the legitimacy of patriarchy. Moreover, if polygyny affirms male headship, then male headship must entail the legitimacy of polygyny. Polygyny is one of the “modes” by which the law of patriarchy is expressed and manifested.​

 

[Nikud]

It doesnt. 1 (polygyny) +2 (headship) = 3 (biblical marriage) but 3 (biblical marriage) -1 (polygyny) does not equal 0 (denial of headship). I know people who recognize the legitimacy headship who have yet to recognize the legitimacy polygyny. Their Patriarchal monogamous families like mine. Polygyny doesn't affirm male headship Gods well defined plan in scripture affirms male headship.

 

[Shibboleth]

I remember reading that passage, and getting confused as well. It's been a while since my propositional logic, but this really looks like he is taking an initially true statement (polygyny→male headship), and then assuming the converse is also true (male headship→polygyny). In general, that can't be done. E.g. just because all cats are animals does not mean that all animals are cats.

So, yeah, that passage really bothered me.

 

[MichaelZ]

I remember reading that passage, and getting confused as well. It's been a while since my propositional logic, but this really looks like he is taking an initially true statement (polygyny→male headship), and then assuming the converse is also true (male headship→polygyny). In general, that can't be done. E.g. just because all cats are animals does not mean that all animals are cats.

So, yeah, that passage really bothered me.

Yes, this paragraph is confusing.

But I like the Artical 2-7. Patriarchy Before the Fall, which are very logical and convincing.

Haven't finished reading the rest parts.

The English in the book is very hard to me.

 

[mystic]

[Edit, 9 Jan 2018: The following is not my final position on the matter, but rather a beginning point for working through some thoughts; see further posts below.]

Regardless of whether male headship is legitimate, this passage of Shipley's doesn't get us there — its logic is formally invalid. Given P = "polygamy is legitimate" and H = "male headship is legitimate," the arguments (in order) can be symbolized this way:

P ⊃ H ∴ !P ⊃ !H​

and

P ⊃ H ∴ H ⊃ P​

Translation of the first argument: "If P then H, therefore if not P then not H" or, in plain English, "If polygamy is legitimate then so is male headship, therefore if polygamy isn't legitimate then neither is male headship."

That's like saying, "If it's raining the street is wet, therefore if it's not raining the street can't be wet" (to use the textbook example). A street can be wet for a number of non-rain reasons — sprinklers, an open hydrant, flooding, copious dew, a broken water main. Although a wet street may have been rained upon, logic alone isn't enough to tell us so.

Likewise, other premises may lead us to conclude that male headship is legitimate, therefore denial of polygamy need not amount to a denial of headship. It would depend on factors not mentioned in Shipley's syllogism.

The second argument is a variation of the first, and just as invalid: "If polygamy's legitimacy implies that of headship, then headship's legitimacy implies that of polygamy."

So Shipley's conclusion isn't necessarily wrong, but the logic he used here is messed up. It's not a good paragraph to quote in support of one's case — unless your point is that supporters of polygamy are sometimes illogical.

 

[MichaelZ]

So what do you think it is the relationship between the headship and polygyny?

 

[mystic]

I haven't read Shipley, other than the paragraph OP quoted above, but I suspect his intended meaning in that passage is that patriarchy fully expressed will manifest as instances of polygamy, so a society that doesn't allow for polygamy isn't really open to patriarchy.

So a few added phrases might clarify his text:

If [the presence of] polygamy (polygyny) is a logical affirmation [that the fullest extent] of male headship [is manifest], then the denial of the legitimacy of polygyny constitutes a denial of the legitimacy of patriarchy. Moreover, if polygyny [is the means by which one] affirms [that] male headship [is present], then [the legitimacy of full] male headship must entail the legitimacy of polygyny. Polygyny is one of the “modes” by which the law of patriarchy is expressed and manifested.​

If my intended meaning is clear via those additions, and matches Shipley's, then I think it could be stated concisely like so: Polygamy is the apotheosis of patriarchy — the culmination, the highest point. So if you have polygamy, you know there's headship. And in rejecting one you reject the other.

And if that's what he's saying, then my previous assessment of his logic was wrong and his passage would be one of those things that make sense once you know what the person is trying to say.

 

[mystic]

Now, I get that some may object to what I said. We don't expect polygamy of every fully male person. That's why I referred to "instances" within a society, and I suppose I could have tightened up my language even further.

But even though Shipley says polygyny is one of the modes by which the law of patriarchy is expressed and manifested, rather than the mode, he also nearly draws an identity relationship between them when he says that to deny the legitimacy of the former "constitutes a denial of" the latter's as well.

That's why I went with polygamy as "apotheosis" and "fullest extent" — else perhaps there are other affirmations equally effective to polygamy, in which case it can be disallowed without harm to headship, and, voilà, we're back in the land of what's-his-logic-anyway?

 

[Shibboleth]

Just to provide another example of how this type of logic fails (and because logicians always love arguing about Plato):

If (the works of Plato) are an affirmation of (the existence of Socrates) then the denial of the legitimacy of (the works of Plato) constitutes a denial of (the existence of Socrates).

Note that it's still quite possible for Socrates to have existed, regardless of the veracity of Plato's writings.

 

[Nikud]

and because logicians always love arguing about Plato):

I can't resist.

Socrates believed dialog was the truest path to knowledge and writing things down would cause the mind to dull resulting in stupidity. Most of the late dialogues attributed to Socrates read more like treatises, and Socrates is often absent from them. It's believed that while some of the early dialogues could possible be based on Socrates' conversations, the later dialogues were written entirely by Plato. So Platos writings being the affirmation of the existance Socrates does not affirm that the dialogs attributed to Socrates were his and not Platos attempt to present his veiws in a diffrent light.

 

[aineo]

And if that's what he's saying, then my previous assessment of his logic was wrong and his passage would be one of those things that make sense once you know what the person is trying to say.

I have read Shipley’s writings, and I think your second assessment and clarification is correct.

 

[Sonny Chancelor]

When I purchased Shipley's books, I recieved them in PDF format. I was wondering if someone has them in paperback or hardback?

 

[tship67]

Let me see if I can do this conversation some justice. Perhaps I was too formal in my book and not didactic enough.

First, let’s ask the fundamental question: WHY is polygyny legitimate? And polyandry not? Many have failed to perceive the underlying principle at work. I have been around this particular block more than once.

The legitimacy of polygamy is based upon authority and hierarchy, the authority of the man, the husband.

Many Christians who believe in polygamy but don't undertand its connection to patriarchy would say simply that it is legitimate because God made it legitimate in his law, and His word is authoritative. But this simply begs the question. Why did God make it legitimate in his law? God is not arbitrary. God is a God of order and not confusion. God is rational and logical. Once you understand this, you see the beautiful simplicity of the logic. I believe one of the fallacies of those who take issue with this have fallen prey to is in failing to distinguish between the permissible and the necessary, or between the permissible and the mandatory.

Let me illustrate this with an example. When I was young I worked for a contractor. He was the owner of the business. He was the authority. For a while I was his only employee. At other times when business was good he would hire other employees. In this example you could say my boss had the authority to have other subordinates, employees, but he was under no inherent necessity to have more employees. However, to deny his right to have other employees is to deny his authority in his business. The analogy in the marriage relationship is exact. To deny the man (who is the authority) the right to have other subordinates, in this case wives, is to deny his authority in the relationship and to implicitly assert an equality of authority between the man and the woman. This is why I assert that "the denial of the legitimacy of polygyny constitutes a denial of the legitimacy of patriarchy." The only thing which could thwart the logical conclusion here would be some principle de-legitimizing polygyny based on some principle not having anything to do with hierarchy and authority.

All authority relationships have this inherent dynamic and structure. Corporations have a single CEO with multiple subordinates. Within the corporation each department has a single department head with multiple subordinates. In an army there is one general and many subordinates; and likewise throughout the entire hierarchy. This one-to-many relationship exists in all hierarchical structures including marriage.

I hope this brings some clarification.

 

[Nikud]

This is why I assert that "the denial of the legitimacy of polygyny constitutes a denial of the legitimacy of patriarchy." The only thing which could thwart the logical conclusion here would be some principle de-legitimizing polygyny based on some principle not having anything to do with hierarchy and authority.

Since Polygyny is Patriarchy based, denying Polygny denies Patriarchy. It would only be true if Polygyny was the only form of marriage where Patriarchy is practiced.

 

[joe88]

P ⊃ H ∴ !P ⊃ !H

I learned the logic this way:
p = hypothesis: Polygamy affirmed
q = conclusion: Patriarchy affirmed

p --> q Conditional: If polygamy is affirmed, then patriarchy is affirmed.
q --> p Converse: If patriarchy is affirmed, then polygamy is affirmed.
~p --> ~q Inverse: If polygamy is not affirmed, then patriarchy is not affirmed.
~q --> ~p Contrapositive: If patriarchy is not affirmed, then polygamy is not affirmed.

The Conditional and Contrapositive are always true (or false) together, and the Converse and Inverse are always true (or false) together. If both sets are true, then the statement can be said to be a biconditional, e.g.

p <--> q Polygamy is affirmed if and only if Patriarchy is affirmed.

I think this is where Shipley was going, but I'm really not sure p and q are linked at all. (Logically, polygamy wouldn't necessarily affirm patriarchy. Absent the clear Word of God in other passages, polygamy could be structured as the rule of the female majority over the poor outnumbered husband!)

Kevin states it well:

It doesnt. 1 (polygyny) +2 (headship) = 3 (biblical marriage) but 3 (biblical marriage) -1 (polygyny) does not equal 0 (denial of headship). I know people who recognize the legitimacy headship who have yet to recognize the legitimacy polygyny. Their Patriarchal monogamous families like mine. Polygyny doesn't affirm male headship Gods well defined plan in scripture affirms male headship.

This all makes me want to say, mind your Ps and Qs!

 

[joe88]

Many Christians who believe in polygamy but don't undertand its connection to patriarchy would say simply that it is legitimate because God made it legitimate in his law, and His word is authoritative.

The illustration of the contractor with his employees is a good one. However, the conclusion that polygamy is affirmed by headship (to the point where denial of polygamy would deny headship) is at best implied and it doesn't apply directly to monogamist marriages. It seems best to me to say that the two precepts are strongly complementary. We must remember that male headship was first declared to a monogamist couple - Adam and Eve - without any mention of any polygamy-affirming implications. Headship was reinforced multiple times in the Law without mention of family structure (monogamist or polygynist) in later passages.

I would argue that the doctrine of male headship flows directly from the "Let Us make man in Our image" passage, which foreshadows and symbolizes the authority of the Father over the Son (one-one), the Son over the Church (one-one), and was demonstrated in Adam's relationship with Eve (one-one). Without other passages to establish monogamy and polygyny as equally legitimate and polyandry as illegitimate, headship may open the door for polygamy, but for me too many questions remain for it to convincingly cross the threshold.

 

[aineo]

p <--> q Polygamy is affirmed if and only if Patriarchy is affirmed.

I think this is where Shipley was going, but I'm really not sure p and q are linked at all. (Logically, polygamy wouldn't necessarily affirm patriarchy. Absent the clear Word of God in other passages, polygamy could be structured as the rule of the female majority over the poor outnumbered husband!)

I certainly don’t need to defend @tship67, as I feel he can adequately do so himself, but I do want to chime in and clarify that we are talking about Biblical polygyny, not worldly polygyny. Biblical polygyny does affirm patriarchy.

 

[Nikud]

All marriages that hold to biblical standard affirm Patriarchy whether it's Polygyny or Monagomy. Since it is affirmed in multiple ways denial of one form of marriage is not not denial of Patriarchy.

Likewise, other premises may lead us to conclude that male headship is legitimate, therefore denial of polygamy need not amount to a denial of headship. It would depend on factors not mentioned in Shipley's syllogism.

All that has been proven is Denial of Patriarchy is the Denial of Biblical Marriage.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Let me illustrate this with an example. When I was young I worked for a contractor. He was the owner of the business. He was the authority. For a while I was his only employee. At other times when business was good he would hire other employees. In this example you could say my boss had the authority to have other subordinates, employees, but he was under no inherent necessity to have more employees. However, to deny his right to have other employees is to deny his authority in his business. The analogy in the marriage relationship is exact. To deny the man (who is the authority) the right to have other subordinates, in this case wives, is to deny his authority in the relationship and to implicitly assert an equality of authority between the man and the woman. This is why I assert that "the denial of the legitimacy of polygyny constitutes a denial of the legitimacy of patriarchy." The only thing which could thwart the logical conclusion here would be some principle de-legitimizing polygyny based on some principle not having anything to do with hierarchy and authority.

Timeless and such a great example. I can relate to this example perfectly.

 

[joe88]

Biblical polygyny does affirm patriarchy.

Aineo, I'm not attacking Shipley, but I do have questions. My premise is that yes, Biblical polygyny and Patriarchy go together hand-in-hand, but if the Lord were to separately specify (He doesn't) the "one man one woman" doctrine, it wouldn't negate Patriarchy - this is where the premise fails. Biblical doctrine specifies that husbands must step up and lovingly lead the home. The number of family members (wife, wives, children, or lack thereof) in his home do not affect his calling to be the head of his home.

The alternative is to suggest something akin to, "Unless you accept the doctrine of polygamy, you as a husband can't really function as the head of your home." That's the part that doesn't make sense to me.