Family+-+'The+Polygamists'

Family: "The Polygamists" I said previously that there's a possibility for abuse and neglect in a polygamist household, just as much as there is in any household; there's also the reality that not every household is completely free from problems, I think this article shows what those realities look like. The author of the article, Scott Anderson, uses a typical anecedotal introduction which, aside from casting a shadow upon the subject which to me alludes to bias, shows one of the biggest problems that can arise in a polygamist setting: falling out of love. According to the story, Merril Jessop supposedly lost interest in his first wife, Foneta, causing Foneta to live in a depressing, or at least unhappy, life. Now, some people may point to this and say that's one of the side effects of polygamy; the man divides his attention to all his wives so much that eventually some of the wives simply get neglected. I don't think it's entirely justifiable to say falling out of love is the direct result of polygamy; it's possible that the polygamist lifestyle is the cause, but it's not the only one. Monogamous couples fall out love all the time, divorce rates are going up, and since these couples are clearly not polygamist, then there has to be other factors. It just so happens that the key would a division of time, something that could be attributed to anything like a job, hobby, or friends, yet no one seems to be calling foul on these. Then there was Merill's fourth wife, Carolyn Jessop, who calls the polygamist enviroment "a cloistered enviroment". To some extent, that seems perfectly logical, more people, less room; but there seems to be a trend in the previous two articles that suggests the families live on a type of coumpound, sometimes having their own individual living quaters, so how many people is needed before the household becomes too overwhelmed? "Brigham Young himself took 55 wives... Wendall Nielsen claims 21 wives... you [can] have men marrying 20, 30, up to 80 or more women (50, 5, 56)." Good lord, that's a lot of women.

This article presents a stark difference between the first two. The most obvious difference, I think, is the number of wives each family has. The first two articles have families of four ("Four Wives and a Firestorm") and nine ("My Husband's Nine Wives"), which is completely different from the numbers Anderson suggests in his article. I think this difference stems, along from a few other differences, directly from the familes' emphasis on religion. "My Husband's Nine Wives" asserts that the practice of polygamy is allowed by the Old Testement, but fails to mention any exact practice. Likewise, the only mention of religion in "Four Wives and a Firestorm" is mentioned by the author, noting the size and trends of polygamous communities, not by the actual paretakers of the practice. The reason we assume that polygamy in all three articles is religious is because of the hints the author or editor drops into the passage: living in Utah, and other buzzwords that lead us to think "Mormon"; however, that doesn't mean the choices are religious. Families across the country would consider themselves "not religious" ayet still marry, so perhaps the same is true for these families; they simply chose to enter this lifestyle, religious beliefs not with standing. Furthermore, Anderson presents a religion that determines "a man's righteousness before God... by the size of his family (50)." In this light, either the previous families are very sinful before God, or they are not large participants of the religion. I think these families simply don't participate in the stereotypical fundamentalist mormonism that polygamist families are thought to relate with. The wives have careers, which is unlike the women in Anderson's article who tend to stay around the home and care for the children and housework and possess "absolutely no life skills (57)." Not to mention the appearance of the people; while the family in "Four Wives and a Firestorm" were dressed as one would expect a modern American to dress, the people in the fundamentalist communities are "all dressed in old-fashioned praire dresses, with elaborately coiffed hair (45)."

There are two points that I think are critical to the polygamy debate presented in the article: the criticism of polygamy and "the central role of women in defending it (57)." A lot of the criticism comes from people who were inside the community and then left. Some would point to this and argue that this is clear evidence that polygamy is wrong, but I think it needs to be looked at further. Criticism is always stronger from those who've experienced it; some of the greatest critics of religious practices, like Christianity, are the ones who've grown up in strong religious practices and becamed disenchanted with them. So while the criticism can provide valid counter arguments, there is also downright malice and bias which shakes the validity of the arguments. Then there's the counter-intuitive fact that women provide more of the defense for polygamy than men. This, first off, completely anihilates the "men are in it for sex and are just womanizers" argument shared by quite a few. So when this fails, the criticism turns to a conspiracist theorist's favorite method: brainwashing. Clearly, the women are being brainswashed to believe polygamy and their fundamentalist communities are wrong, and it's our job to save them. I don't necessarily think that's the case, an it reveals an interesting paradox in world views. First off, there's the question: aren't we being brainwashed to believe that monogamy works and is morally better than polygamy? Polygamists don't see the "evils" that occur in their communities, much like people in the monogamous community don't see the "good" of polygamy. Then there's the story of the government refusing to return one woman to her children unless she renounced her polygamous practices. Now to the Christian critic, that is all fair and well, we've brought one to our side. Then, "within days of making that promise, she ... renewed her commitment to [polygamy] (57)." To our Christian critic, this is a travesty, and clearly shows how brainwashed they are. But, to show how both sides are in a sense brainwashed, to those of the Christian faith, one of the most regarded stories is that of the Apostles refusing to spread the gospel, even after being told by their government to stop. I think the story of the women is simply a Mormom equivalent, and such parrallels reveal the unmoving will of both sides.