I just received a mail from a less open-minded web master -- a person who beleives he is the one to decide what is polyamory and what is not. Polygyny and harems are to be considered non-polyamory, is what he said. That is in contradiction to other polygroups (including the poly ring) and the wikipedia pages. And it feels very inner crowd (and not poly-like) to decide someone does not belong to 'us'.
I hope one day, he will open his eyes and realize that the Western viewpoint on harems is very wrong. In this respect, I dare to humbly refer to Fatima Mernissa's work "Sheherazade goes West". More about her work is on http://www.mernissi.net/books/books/scheherazade_goes_west.html
Pleasant reading.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
What you describe is a husband owning a group of co-wives. In POLYAMORY, there is NO ownership.
The key tenets of POLYAMORY are equality among ALL participants in a family unit (such as your described harem), not the levels of seniority you are discussing. How do you even figure the polyandrous families? or do they not exhist at all in your world?
As someone who has proudly written articles on the subject that were posted by the "Less Open Minded web master" I take offence.
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding out there.
1° In my vision of a harem there is no ownership at all. On the contrary, it is all about partnership. Of course, if one defines the word harem to include ownership per definition, than that is a different vision. But it is not mine.
2° Open-minded to me means that one at least takes the time to try and understand the other person's vision and doesn't bann a different vision at once, without even asking profound questions about it. The reaction of that web master was blunt and not open-minded at all. Although I respected his opinion and deleted the reference to his site from my blog, it did give me the bad feeling someone claims ownership of polyamory. I hope my post will create some discussion about the opening of the incrowd -- as it did.
3° This blog describes nothing. With this blog I only want to find out how or even if a harmoneous family with one man and four women is possible. The answer can be 'no'. The answer can be 'maybe if so and so'. Maybe the answer to senioriry levels is 'this is not possible' or 'this cannot work in a polyamorous situation'. Fine, but than I would like some background about it on the concerned post -- and not just a comment 'it does not work because it is not polyamory'. Explain me why it is not working well, and I will be the first to listen and act accordingly.
4° If the answer is no, than there probably also should be no mentioning of polygamy or polygyny or polyandry on the polyamory pages of wikipedia.
5° For your information, polyandry to me is as valid as polygyny and polyamory. This blog focuses on one kind of family situation. Feal free to open a different blog on polyandry. I would love to participate in the discussions over there, and share visions from both sides.
Anyway, thank you for commenting on this blog. I would be glad to get feedback on some of the other posts from you.
You seem to place GREAT stock in wikipedia. Wikipedia is a source that anyone can put whatever information they want into and I have never relied on it for truthful or accurate information. There are MANY other more accurate resources out there.
As for listing POLYAMORY sites under the header "links about harems and polygyny" THAT is what I object to. You should list it as "Other plural relationship styles"
In the USA most of the Polyamorists I know are doing everything in their power to seperate from the idea that Polygyny/polygamy is polyamory. By definition it is. The main reason is because of the FLDS religions beliefs. Many undereducated people assume that ANY plural relationship IS polygamy simply because that is what the news broadcasts. The FLDS have officially renounced the polygamous marriage practice but devout followers still practice in in a variety of ILLEGAL ways such as underaged arranged marriages and forced sex with "elders". I don't denounce the 1 husband many wives practice. But I would ask that you show equal fairness to 1 woman, plural men and multiple men and women in an arrangement also. Polygyny is not POLYAMORY, it qualifies as a TYPE of polyamorous relationship. Maybe if you had some of your significant others post on how THEY feel about the arrangement, or if you made some comparisons to other relationship styles other than business practices.
I do have some knowledge of ancient harem practices and many of the benifits and drawbacks they held. I have participated in a historical re-enactment group with a woman who spent years researching the subject of Turkish harems, even going so far as contacting and having subsequent conversations with turkish royalty on the subject.
My first glance, as a woman, I see a man who wants a HAREM and all that modern western societies see in that. You say things as if you expect to have full reign over a family. Maybe if you looked at the relationship style you desired and tried to associate it to modern terms and not ancient rites it might help.
Please dont ask people to be so open on their own viewpoints if you are going to hold so rigidly to your own.
Thank you for your interesting comment. I agree with your feedback on the links title, and I will change it right now. I am sorry for having offended you with that title -- I did not intend to.
I also have a question for you about the US polyamorists trying to seperate polygamy from polyamory. If I understand it well, the intention is to purify the term polyamory in order to make it clear to the world that certain practices that might seem polyamory (by definition), are not at all polyamory in reality. Is that right?
As for open-minded or not, please do not jump into conclusions. If I would be so rigid, then I would not have started this blog in the first place. The blog aims at receiving feedback -- like the last comment of yours. The suggestion on taking a viewpoint from the relationship type first, is helpful advice. And I would love to get in touch with the specialist of ancient harems you mention, in order to know the drawbacks from the old rites.
Hope to read from you soon.
Alas I am no longer in contact with my friend, she had some major health issues and withdrew from the group. I do remember what she taught the women of the group about her persona though.
Some of the major drawbacks of Harems. Even though a woman might have senority there was always the threat of the other wives. If you were not one of the primary (1st- 3rd) wives, and bore a son, that child might be killed by the 1st wife simply so she had the opportunity to bear the sons.
Most of the downfalls had to do with the heirarchies within the harem. Jealousy only scratches the surface. Woman were given small areas of land to be able to make some money that may or may not have been given to the male leader. But if a subordinate wife was more successful than the primary wife, that primary wife could have her removed from the harem. In the harem your life was never truly your own. At any time you could be assassinated, or you children could be taken away or killed. there was always a threat from the primary wives if the Husband should suddenly take a fancy to you if you were lower in the ranks. Then you life was never assured.
Many women in a harem came from the poor pesant class and were sold into the harem as soon as they hit puberty. As a new wife you were treated as a slave by the senior wives. You never had ANY rank in many cases until you had borne a child.
It wasnt always a horrible life. But it was no picnic either. There was financial security if you were good at being subordinate and were skilled at your responsibilities. Otherwise you were either sold off to another only to have to start at the bottom again, sent back to your family in disgrace or killed in a subtle fashion (ground glass in your food etc.). Most likely you wold just "dissapear".
Women in some harems were given rights, they could own businesses and teach schools and get educated, but it was all earned. Everything you were given other than basic clothing, basic food, and usually a roof, were earned with rank.
The only reasons I remember as much as I do is because we all, in turn, hosted seminars on a topic related to our personas. She had the best food and had "garb" for all of us to wear. She followed a personal version of the muslim faith much as her persona would have but modified to her medical concerns. She was the one who I learned the positive aspects of harems from.
I still just dont think that describing yourself as a "harem" in this day and age, unless you are living and practicing in a muslim country, will earn the respect that many in the poly communities are striving for. Something such as an "extended" or "plural" family will seem more respected or mainstream. It has taken years for the Gay and Lasbian movement to become more accepted because of the ancient and old fashioned ideas of the majority (I.E. Undereducated).
As a Poly person myself I am trying to make others see the NEW reasons for the OLD lifestyle archetype. Plural unions and families have exhisted since the begining of man. In order to earn modern acceptance we need to describe it in modern terms. We try to make our own definitions so that there is no confusion with the old beliefs.
P.S. The only reason I post anony. is because I do not wish to sign up for a google/blogger account.
Thank you for your interesting comment on the issues in ancient harems. If I read it well, it seems that lack of group ethics and the missing of some basic behavioral rules are the main reason for those issues -- not the existence of hierarchy. Maybe even a more strictly regulated hierarchy with a fair judge controlling it, would have turned an ancient harem into a more fair environment to live in. So I am not sure hierarchy is the problem, here.
A bad history is not a profound reason to get rid of the term "harem" -- although I have to admit that I did not choose the easiest of terms to get accepted by the poly community. You probably would also find a lot of monogamous relations in the ancient past where the husband treated his wife as a slave. That bad history is not a good enough reason to bann the word monogamy, either. On the contrary, it would be nice for polygamy that one could be able to show a modern harem can work ethically and in harmony.
Anyway, the tension between the ancient word "harem" and the modern times inspires me to continue using the word "harem" on this blog. Hope you don't mind.
feel free to keep using the word harem, but be aware that it is hard enough getting accepted as an alternative lifestyle, but when those who are part of that lifestyle have issues with your terminology you will be working twice as hard as you have to to get what you desire.
There is a reason it is called the Poly "community". We all are trying to work towards the same goal, with as much as the same path. Strength in numbers and so on. Singling yourself out as a divergent part of that small community is not going to earn you the support, just will allow you to skate on the hard work of the group to get what you desire. Sometimes it is better to follow the rough path, than to try to reinvent the wheel.
as for the monogamous slavery, no monogamy is not an inherently bad term, but keeping slaves has been deemed illegal.
Monogamy is not associated as slavery because it was the minority, not majority.
Harem is associated with slavery because it WAS the majority, not the minority.
Post a Comment