posted
Card is a Mormon and it is mistakenly thought that there is still a mainstream practice of Polygomy in Mormon culture. However It has often occured to me that many of our current social crisis level issues would be solved or softened by polyandry, polygomy and group marriage. I guess the de facto culture of serial polygomy pushes my hypocrisy button, Heinlien explored this issue in his later works, and I wonder if OSC has touched on it at all or if he is afraid of the stigmata being LDS.
posted
I'd be afraid of any stigmata. I'd have to throw away all my nice shoes! Not to mention my gloves!
-o-
Seriously . . . do you mean specifically in a futuristic setting? I can't think of where he has. But then, I starting to think of OSC as not a Sci Fi author, but simply an author. He's gotten to the point where he has as many books out of the field as in. He did deal with polygamy from a completely LDS (and historically-inspired) perspective in Saints.Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The contract marriages of Basilica in Call of Earth seemed a fairly frank speculation. Saints and Women of Genesis also deal with it, a bit more personally I think. I have no idea if they get into this in Folk of the Fringe or elsewhere.
I should try reading Folk . I have no particular reason not to.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Think of the social and financial gains of the situation! Multiple incomes, stay at home moms, children with solid sibling groups, large houses, rapid debt reduction, sexual options for variety. I would have them marry in groups of four, six or eight, much more then that and you should split into two families.
Of course I would recomend avoiding the Morman and bibical error of having more women then men. At least never more then one extra. The situation would make the most of the social possibilities of the modern world. This was Heinlien's theory, and it was a pattern followed by Eskimo's and some primitive Christian's too unsophisticated to realize that "love one another" could not mean "make love" to one another. Pour deluded souls, the followers of Saul of Tarsus wiped them out, thank God!
So there it is, a pattern of Prosperity, Health, Love, Freedom of choice, and Sexual Equality. With all the elements people write in Science Fiction, social change leading to conflict and new social dynamics.
You would think OSC would pick it up. But I certainly will, while I am deployed in Iraq I will use my spare time to write some stories using the idea.
posted
Good luck in Iraq! On the BFFAC one of our friends recently ended a polyamorous/community relationship. If people can't even support the poor through private charity donations, what are the chances of them navigating multiple relationships in an equitable way.
Human nature is just too prone to favoritism, jealousy, blame, and petty evil. Please note I am not ascribing the polyamory to evil, but breakups in general, whether they be in traditional relationships or progressive arrangements. And I mean evil in the general sense of selfishness, and not of madmen threatening terror in exchange for large sums of money.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: On the BFFAC one of our friends recently ended a polyamorous/community relationship. If people can't even support the poor through private charity donations, what are the chances of them navigating multiple relationships in an equitable way.
I do not see what one has to do with the other.
I know that these arrangements generally fall apart in the current environment. It is precicely because they are self indulgent that they do not work. Just as two people who cannot stand each other will stay married for the sake of their children, so too will a collection of children, financial ties, and property anchor a group marriage.
I have designed houses and compounds that are made to allow seperate housholds within for family units that do not want to integrate or partner swap except for things like the day care, kitchen and pool area. It is a way for middle class people to live affluently and give the best to their children.
quote: Human nature is just too prone to favoritism, jealousy, blame, and petty evil.
Of course, you never avoid tension and favoritism, what is it with this generation that we think that all these things must then be displayed? Simply conduct yourself with propriety whatever your feelings.
It requires maturity not the play-pen crowd that usually tries it.
posted
The rate of divorces would seem to support that most people don't stay together just for the sake of the children. Though if you have data showing that, it would be interesting. But I don't think someone bound in an relationship solely by obligation is going to be eager to see that squared or cubed by adding more families.
The Israeli kibbutz was, I thought, an exploration into community childcare etc. Where, as you describe, those who don't necessarily wish to share intimacies could theoretically benefit from other shared resources.
The thing is, happiness isn't only contained in prosperity and security. It is also obtained in opportunity and change. If leaving the hive is going to cripple it, others may feel they have the right to force someone to stay even at the cost of their happiness.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have often thought about this very interesting prosperity movement. I am from Iowa where kids grow and get the best education in America, go to College and then leave en masse to find prosperity.
A house worth 40,000 back home cost 120,000 in those "prosperous" places. You need the larger income to live the same standard of living or lower.
Point being if eight people pool their income, even if it is 25,000 each with two full time moms that is 150,000 a year. Most millionaires make about that amount. If a third of that represents annual investment and savings then in ten years the income from investments becomes more then another two incomes!
Stability leads to affluence, not moving about. If someone wants a divorce after a period then out they go with a full share. Then we shop for another couple that wants to jump in.
Actually the whole thing could be organized as an S-corperation under current law. sub chapter S partnership.
In twenty years the group will enjoy income from two million in investment, which is more then the total income of the group (assuming they never make a dime more). That means a group of high school graduates could stop working at 38 and do whatever they want. Maybe they would split the marriage up after the kids were raised, just keeping business ties.
Just don't see the down side, assuming you have people who can all get along, which happens an awful lot despite what you might think. People get along more often then not.
posted
I am currently sharing a house with my parents, my sister (who is unexpectedly and temporarily back home), and my brother, SIL, and niece -- not to mention my three kids.
*dryly* I would rather disagree with
quote: People get along more often then not.
quote: Looks like the divorce rate of people without kids is still just under twice that of those with.
Care to provide a link?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sounds like you have to get along quite a bit, but more to the point family are people you have no choice about, people who you "marry" are going to be chosen.
No. Google Divorce Rate Statistics. Divorces involving Children are 23% of marriages, 42% of marriges end in divorce. Pretty straight forward math.
posted
Not really. First off, neither of those statistics is widely agreed upon. (A quick perusal of the first few Google results gave numbers as different as 40% and 49% for the total percentage of divorces. Also, are we discussing the US only? Worldwide?) Secondly, 42% is hardly "just under" 46%. I can't even find the 23% statistic you cited.
But most importantly, you are comparing apples and oranges. To compare divorces involving children and those that don't (in any meaningful way) you would have to adjust for differences in: average age of couple at marriage, length of average marriage, socioeconomic status, and a variety of other factors.
It really isn't as simple as you are trying to make it seem. Neither is long-term stability of polyandrous unions -- with or without children.
posted
Thanks for the Links! But I already did a search. I think it is pretty clear that the 'with children' Stat is way lower then the without. I did not say it was exactly half, but slightly less then half.
Still I am glad you feel strongly enough about refuting the Bean Counter to look up his facts! Keeps me honest.
I do not know why I would have to include race and economics and all the rest in the situation, Those issues should wash out in the general statistic.
However if economic stress is a real factor in divorce then the argument swings to my favor since the group marrige is a way to reduce such stress. Race may or may not be an issue in the marriage depending on the tastes and opinions of the people involved. I doubt that there would be any 'affirmative action' involved, but variety is the spice of life...
quote: I have designed houses and compounds that are made to allow seperate housholds within for family units that do not want to integrate or partner swap except for things like the day care, kitchen and pool area. It is a way for middle class people to live affluently and give the best to their children.
*curious* what are groups living in this manner called. Could you provide a link to your work or someone else's in this area. I never realized this was possible?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
*amused* I expect everyone at Hatrack to back up statistical claims with actual statistics. I note that you still have not provided a link to the claimed 23% . . . and have ignored the numbers that my links provided, which were significantly lower.
I didn't bring up race. I would agree that race is unlikely to be significant. (Although culture probably matters quite a bit. Many of the cultural biases that encourage couples to produce multiple children, frequently also encourage keeping marriages together.) As far as socioeconomics . . . you're kidding, right? Why on earth would you assume they would "wash out in the general statistic"? Very sloppy methodology, assumptions like that! And almost certain to be untrue, IMO.
quote: However if economic stress is a real factor in divorce then the argument swings to my favor since the group marriage is a way to reduce such stress.
From my own personal experience and many studies I have read, lack of actually money is NOT the issue in most marital arguments about money. Rather, it's making the choices as to what takes priority (savings; spending on: more or less expensive clothes, house, car; education; etc.) and different attitudes about money that cause most of the problem. (Arguments about who is making the money and therefore the decisions can also be a factor if one parent is SAH. Your theoretical situation would exacerbate that as well.) Having a bigger pool of money to draw from is unlikely to help -- and certainly not when it comes with MORE people, each with their own opinion about how to spend it!
In any case, you don't seem interested in providing actual data. *shrug* So I'm done.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Not hard to find, but I find it interesting that we so nearly agree in language and observation, about the reality behind economic stress and other issues... yet you want to nit pick a number that your source sited as "Lower" without giving a value, and use that to bail.
It seems that this issue strikes close to home. The variables you keep throwing up are all things that a good group marriage would negotiate ahead of time, who controls investment, who is in charge of household budget, babysitting, night out scheduals, partner rotation. It is silly to say these things can not be organized and agreed on, businesses far more complex then this carry on every day.
You think that the everyday problems would amplify each other, but I think that there would be a dampening effect. The power of confession is that everybody knows! Having our peers present is a powerful incentive to excellence.
posted
I don't think Card has ever had polygamy in any of his books.
I do seem to remember the marital arrangements in 'The Call of Earth' series being a little strange, but I don't remember exactly how they worked.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
I'd have to throw away all my nice shoes! Not to mention my gloves!![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
