Why patriarchy implies polygyny?

[Mojo]

Fair enough. Tom argues from a platform of being very sure he's right, which works with some people and not so much with others. It's the difference between bringing along a sympathetic audience ("I think I understand what he meant") and antagonizing an unsympathetic audience ("aha, I caught him over-reaching"). Are we trying to 'win' an argument or achieve an understanding?

At the risk of setting us off on another course around the mountain, I wonder how many people who had a problem with the three sentences would have had the problem if they had read the whole book and developed an understanding of the kind of argument Tom was making and the kind of audience he was making it to, to be able to "explain more clearly" to MichaelZ what Tom's reasoning was. But I'm not arguing that the section couldn't have been better written, so we're still friends, right?

Thanks for the answers above. I think a lot of this thread get lost in terminology. If you don't agree on the language of the situation, how in heck can you come to a consensus?

For the record, in post #24, I did bring up overreach...just saying


@andrew, your quote essentially summarizes my whole point. Denial is only an indirect attack. If you want to topple a fortress or bulwark, you've got to wage a frontal attack at some point. The legitimizing of matriarchy (in and out of the church) is the frontal assault we are losing right now.

And the denial of the legitimacy of polygyny constitutes an indirect attack on patriarchy and biblical male headship.

 

[cnystrom]

BTW: Dont question my faith to try to make your arguement.

I apologize. You and your family have my full respect.

I do not question your faith. I do not think I said anything that questioned your faith, but if I did, it was accidental and inadvertant.

I do not intend to argue and have no interest in winning arguments or trying to glorify myself in any way really.

I am only posting to try to be helpful. In this case, I do not think people were really understanding Shipley's point.

But please ignore anything that I write that you do not find helpful. I am totally ok with that.

 

[cnystrom]

I've been thinking of this conundrum of "implications" lately. Will some of you logicians and deep thinkers help me see if my line of reasoning is sound?

In China, there has been a longstanding "one child" policy to maintain population control. In the West, we have implemented a "one wife at a time" policy to....I'm not sure what the purpose is, but it's there.

Does limiting the number of children limit the implications of parenthood? It limits choice by fiat, but is parenthood and its responsibilities and leadership diminished?

Does parenthood imply polyprogeny?

Yes, parenthood being a hierarchical relationship.

China has to implement an artificial constraint to limit it.

No one would think that parenthood would AUTOMATICALLY imply monoprogeny UNLESS there was some spefic rule to specify it (like China made) even if there was a first family story with only one child in it.

In the Biblical case, since there was no specific rule to limit one wife, there is no reason to think that there should AUTOMATICALLY be a one wife constraint. The only reason we think so is because of our culture.

Why does parenthood imply polyprogeny? Because it fits the hierarchical model that God prescribes for the parenthood relationship (there is no reason multiple children can not honor and obey their parents).

Does it PROVE it? No. Does it imply it? Yes.

 

[cnystrom]

In the West, I see the "one wife at a time" teaching it as part of the development of the apostacy that would "forbid to marry" (1Tim 4:1-3).

Since the Biblical word for polygamy is "marriage" it seems to me that 1 Timothy 4:3 would also apply to polygamous marriage which makes modern anti-polygamy laws not only inconvenient, but immoral.

 

[cnystrom]

Oh, fine. I should have said nobody but Chris is saying that.

More later.

What? What I did I say?

 

[Quartus]

Since the Biblical word for polygamy is "marriage" it seems to me that 1 Timothy 4:3 would also apply to polygamous marriage which makes modern anti-polygamy laws not only inconvenient, but immoral.

Yes, in principle I have a lot of sympathy with Martin Madan's views on this, but sadly he doesn't have the spirit that a reading of the woman taken in adultery requires. That's a great pity because it makes him so politically incorrect by today's standards.

As far as I can see the world is far more immoral run by monogamists than it would be if it was run by polygamists. The underlying problem is that men do not give honour to the weaker vessel (1Pet 3:7). Until that happens, there will be abuses under polygamy or monogamy, the difference being they will be different problems.

So it seems better to me to look at the lawgiver(s) than those who should be keeping the law: the choice is the polygamy law given by the righteous God, or the monogamy law given by immoral Roman emperors, et al.

 

[cnystrom]

The one child rule doesn't eliminate the institution of parenthood, it just simply limits its expressions.

But that IS the exact point! It "limits its expression". The is no reason to "limit its expression" UNLESS there is a rule to limit its expression.

In the Bible there is not one for parenthood, and to Shipley's point, unfortunately for monogamists, there is not one for marriage either.

The natural result of patriarchy UNLESS you "limit its expression" is polygamy.

To get monogamy you would need patriarchy + "a limiting expression".

Thus patriarchy without a limiting expression is polygamy.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Yes, parenthood being a hierarchical relationship.

China has to implement an artificial constraint to limit it.

No one would think that parenthood would AUTOMATICALLY imply monoprogeny UNLESS there was some spefic rule to specify it (like China made) even if there was a first family story with only one child in it.

In the Biblical case, since there was no specific rule to limit one wife, there is no reason to think that there should AUTOMATICALLY be a one wife constraint. The only reason we think so is because of our culture.

Why does parenthood imply polyprogeny? Because it fits the hierarchical model that God prescribes for the parenthood relationship (there is no reason multiple children can not honor and obey their parents).

Does it PROVE it? No. Does it imply it? Yes.

So we'll said. What a great side by side comparison. I'd never thought of it in this light

 

[Mojo]

But that IS the exact point! It "limits its expression". The is no reason to "limit its expression" UNLESS there is a rule to limit its expression.

In the Bible there is not one for parenthood, and to Shipley's point, unfortunately for monogamists, there is not one for marriage either.

The natural result of patriarchy UNLESS you "limit its expression" is polygamy.

To get monogamy you would need patriarchy + "a limiting expression".

Thus patriarchy without a limiting expression is polygamy.

I'm thinking we're getting lost in each other's assumptions and definitions of the terms we are all using. There may be Webster's dictionary definitions, but there are also our own filters and experiences of the words we are using. Without facial and physical presence to help us clarify, it makes it even harder.

I will go back to a post I made earlier and stress that ancient patriarchy (the truest biblical example) is not the "I am king of my castle with MY family". It was more tribal and clannish. A man with one or multiple wives and multitudes of children was not necessarily the patriarch of his family. His father or even grandfather might be seen as the patriarch (think Jacob and his sons). A monogamist (by personal choice, or lack of resources) was still a cog in the machinery of patriarchy.

I agree that limits on marriage are an assault on patriarchy. I just disagree that it is an assault so egregious that it can eliminate the institution. The institution can still go on. Humans can survive without four limbs, half a brain, feet of intestines, eyes, ears......but they are still viable human beings, and if certain organs are intact, even reproduce! Institutional monogamy, while not optimum, does not eliminate patriarchy.

I'm not saying that anyone here is arguing that it eliminates it, but I just found Shipley's statements to be an overreach and unnecessary to the conversation of legitimacy.