ADVENTURES OF ESPERANZA: Eve

Am still thinking about the implications of the whole "types of polygamy" thing. (See below.) So let me walk through an argument, based in part on people I've known in polyamorous relationships. In this post, I'm using the persona of "Esperanza"--who is in long-term relationships with Lisa and Jack, and who is raising two children--to argue from a perspective that is definitely not my own, but that I think isn't presented in the mainstream media today because it's not (yet) assimilated, comfortable, or expedient. Stuff in bold is arguments against "Esperanza"'s position; everything else is in "her" voice. (Sorry for length....)

1. Marriage is how we show our love and commitment to one another. I agree.

2. But if we let you all marry, how will we know who makes the decisions, really? How will we know who should be listened to when you disagree? How do you know when the parents of a single woman disagree over, for example, her medical treatment, when she's incapacitated? It's not a great situation. But it's a lot better than treating one of my life partners as if she's "real family" and one of my life partners as if he's a stranger... isn't it?

3. We encourage people to marry so that someone will take care of them. But you've already got someone (Lisa or Jack) to take care of you. Why can't you settle for marrying just one of them? Because I don't love Lisa but not Jack, or Jack but not Lisa. I don't love one less than the other. I love them differently, because they're different people. Jack is the father of my older child (the younger one is adopted), but Lisa has been a part of both my kids' lives from the beginning. Why should I choose? Why should I tell my children that one of their parents is more important than the other? (If I choose Jack, I'm cutting Lisa off from children who call her "Mama"--I'm "Mommy"--and if I choose Lisa, I'm preventing my children from having a father. Is either of those options really okay?)

4. Marriage domesticates sexuality. I agree. It's astonishing to me that today, heterosexuals can practice what is essentially fake polygamy, forming halfhearted and traumatically shattered families one after the other, when I can't get legal recognition for the stable family of which I'm already a part. ...I also think it's kind of crazy that we think love is so scarce, so fragile, that we can only love one other person fully. Not only does this deny the reality of family life (where we generally love two parents, and/or multiple siblings, with an abiding passion), but it's pretty obviously based on an ahistorical and culturally-biased model of the nuclear family rather than the extended family.

5. If people can marry more than one person, doesn't that mean marriage no longer implies sexual fidelity? Oh, honey, that ship has sailed. Your wedding ring doesn't make you a no-fly zone anymore--easy divorce has seen to that. Even barring divorce, it's not as if open marriages are illegal--unlike poly marriages. And if you do think marriage requires sexual exclusivity, I'm still not sure what your problem is. Do you think you'll cheat on your wife if polygamy is legalized? Do you think your wife will cheat on you if she can suddenly marry me? Because if the answer isn't "no," I think your marriage has more problems than a political discussion can really address.

6. Polygamy is rooted in oppression of women. Sigh. What we usually think of as "polygamy," in which one man can marry many women, but no other family groupings are accepted, is definitely oppressive to women. But that has nothing to do with my life. This is like the '70s arguments that no women should marry because marriage is rooted in women's oppression. We learned that we can reshape marriage to be a more egalitarian arrangement, based on love and commitment rather than on a man's ownership of a woman. Similarly, my relationships with Jack and Lisa aren't based on a man's ownership of two women; they're an egalitarian and loving commitment we've all made to one another, despite societal discouragement. Who are you to tell us we're oppressive or regressive?

7. OK, so you're, personally, not oppressed. But if you can marry Jack and Lisa, what will stop abusive polygamists from promoting their way of life? I understand the concern here. I'm a feminist. But please, consider these two points before you say that feminists should oppose poly-marriage:
a) Most of the problems with fundamentalist religious polygamous communities arise from three sources: in this order, violence against women; statutory rape; and welfare fraud. All of these acts are already illegal. We know that "normal," "traditional" marriages aren't security against rape, battering, or other abusive acts. Poly-marriage won't be a guarantee against those acts either. But it's the abusive acts that should be prosecuted, not poly-marriage as such--just like with "regular" marriage.
b) In every culture in which polygamy has promoted and sheltered abuse, "polygamy" has meant one man with many wives. We know that only allowing that model hurts women. But the poly-marriage model, in which one woman can take many husbands or (perhaps more likely) individuals can make varied, married arrangements to share their family lives, has never been tried. "Poly" families already exist, are already raising children, and are already trying to build lives despite lack of governmental recognition. However, we will continue to face discrimination and discouragement unless we can legally protect our family relationships.

7. There really aren't a lot of families like you. No kidding. My family is constantly degraded--in both the mainstream and the gay press--as immoral and unstable. Not a lot of people want to put up with that kind of demonization. I don't know how my minority status somehow became an argument that I'm immoral. I kind of thought we were beyond that.

Eve again: Okay, so I've channeled Esperanza. My question for you: Is she wrong?
posted by Eve at 3:56 AM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home