( Originally published on Open Salon 5/12/2010)
By Mary Ann Sorrentino
"ONE
MAN, 5 WIVES, 46 CHILDREN" screamed the cover of the National
Geographic magazine in the waiting room holding me captive. I hadn't read
a National Geographic since puberty, when teens would fumble through
copies in their parents' libraries, hoping for a glimpse of naked people around
the globe. With less than that youthful enthusiasm (and with only Sports
Illustrated or Family Circle as reading options) I read the
polygamy article.
It
described the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS)
which split from the Mormons in 1935 after rejecting the mother church's
ultimatum to renounce polygamy. Today the FLDS has more than 38,000 members
mostly on the Utah-Arizona border and in other parts of America
The
guy on the cover with the 5 wives and 46 kids is Joe Jessop, a church elder
aged 88.Jessop also has 239 grandchildren. (I'm thinking Joe and the wives
ought to be sitting in 6 bathtubs watching a sunset behind the mountains in
their own Cialis ad.)
There's
probably not much passion in places like the FLDS Yearning for Zion Ranch in El Paso , Texas
FLDS
women admit they sometimes feel hurt, rejection and jealousy about competing with
other women (sometimes their biological sisters.) This happens in monogamy too,
so get over it.
The
article made me wonder if there were societies where women take multiple
husbands. My immediate response was that women are smarter than to do anything
that dumb. By observation, if not experience, women understand that most
husbands demand so much attention no one would want more than one. And 46
children! The thought alone would send most women-- usually the primary
caregivers-- scrambling for a tubal ligation.
In fact, there are virtually no polyandrous
societies on this planet (polyandry being the term describing women with
multiple husbands.) Polygyny is the accurate term for men with
multiple wives. The more commonly used polygamy is actually a
non-specific term describing those of either gender with multiple spouses.
Another issue of National Geographic described the only remaining
society where women may have several husbands-- all brothers--in a remote area
in the Himalayas . Acquiring fraternal
husbands, however, is different from men picking their own wives. In the Himalayas it's, "marry one get 2 or 3 more
free."
The brothers may (but are not compelled to)
take the same wife. They live together, with common children. The men help with
the housework (or hut-work) so it's not all bad. Not surprisingly,
Psychology Today's examination of polyandry attributed to it more sexual
motives. The shrink journal also had an accusatory subtext warning men in
monogamous situations not to be fooled by wives likely to sleep around. So Psychology
Today basically concludes women are naturally sluts and it shouldn't
matter if they service multiple husbands. (No professional in-depth scientific
analysis, though, of the roving eyes, hands and other body parts of
"monogamous" husbands like Tiger Woods, David Duchovny, or Bill
Clinton.)
I
see the fact that women do not choose multiple husbands as one of the few
gender-based advantages females can claim. Women should just continue to play
"dumb like a fox" in societies where they are not allowed to have
more than one husband, for whatever reason. It is a gift to be spared several
more mates to pick up after. Just think about all the nagging time women save
by having only one guy to remind to take out the trash, pick the kids up after
Little League, call his mother on her birthday, keep the doctor's appointment
on Friday, feed the dog, put those in the hamper, or look in the second
drawer-- where they have ALWAYS been.
So the absence of
polyandry in the world may not be an accident at all, but testimony to the
superior wisdom, practicality and self-preservation instinct of the females of
our species. An old feminist adage cautions
that, "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." (now click on this last sentence)
So a fish that doesn't need Lance Armstrong can probably do without the whole Tour de France.
So a fish that doesn't need Lance Armstrong can probably do without the whole Tour de France.
____________________________________
To learn more, click link below for video
No comments:
Post a Comment