quote: Obviously, if your spouse can just get another if you do not suffice, but you yourself must make do with only him, this puts you in a position of undue dependency and lack of commiserate options.
Ooo, you just hit the nail on the head. That is one of my big issues with polygyny. Grrrrrr.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
ClaudiaTherese:"A world where men may have multiple wives and women may have multiple hubands seems inherently less problematic from a distribution of power perspective than a world in which only men may have multiple partners."
I have no legal objections to this. The way I figure it, if it were legal for a man to have more than one wife, there's no legal reason why it shouldn't work the other way as well.
The question in my mind is whether it actually would work the other way. That is, I expect that if both formulations of marriage were legally available, polyandry would be far, far less common than polygyny. The cynic would say that this is because of all the horny men, but I would say there is an even more basic reason.
There tend to be more marriageable women than men, except in those (historically few) instances where the number of women has been artificially kept low, like in modern China. I think I remember reading that there is a slight statistical edge in favor of female births above male. And other causes, such as war, have always worked to keep the male population even lower.
On top of that, consider all the men that are not inclined to marry at all, either because they have no interest in it, or don't like kids, or don't want to be tied down, or whatever. There are also women that feel this way, but I really think it is much more common with men. It all adds up to a lot more women looking to get married than men.
So, practically speaking, I think that polygyny is much more likely of a marriage formulation than polyandry.
quote: (At least, if one values such things as intimacy, time with one's spouse, and attention from one's spouse -- with or without sex, regardless.)
I'm not strictly referring to sex either. When my husband and I finally go to bed at night, that's our time. We talk, play, and reconfirm our bond and commitments. I can't even imagine being able to lie down to sleep knowing he's going through the same thing the next night with someone down the hall.
I value my spouse's time, feelings, and attentions (sexual and otherwise). He's my best friend. You just don't share your best friend.
We've discussed the issue. He's admitted that it would be hard emotionally and physically to have more than one wife. He'd be a goner in a matter of months. (And for you smarty pants out there...he assures me he doesn't say that just because he's married to me )
Posts: 3771 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't forget all the times throughout history where war has killed off obscene numbers of men. Polygyny was rather practical in those times.
Not too long ago, someone was telling us about a town in Russia (I think) who's population of marriagable men was completely wiped out. Then a troop of American (I think) soldiers passed through. There was a whole fresh crop of babies that next year.
While this idea disgusts me on a visceral level, without marriagable men, that town was doomed to die out, or at least be terribly stagnant until the next generation rose.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have no legal objections to this. The way I figure it, if it were legal for a man to have more than one wife, there's no legal reason why it shouldn't work the other way as well.
The problem is with matters of consent and crossover: if X is married to 1, 2, and 3, can 2 marry Y without X's consent? What if the "marriage units" are (X, 1, 2, 3); (Y, 2); (Z, 1, 3)? Lot of money to be made for divorce lawyers, I guess.
And if Z found a wallet dropped by Q on land owned by 6, who gets to keep the money in a common law jurisdiction with no finder law?
posted
Tryin' to love two women is like a ball and chain. Tryin' to love two women is like a ball and chain. Sometimes the pleasure ain't worth the strain. It's a long, hard grind and it tires your mind.
When you try to please two women you can't please yourself. When you try to please two women you can't please yourself. Your best is only half-good. A man can't stock two shelves. It's a long, hard grind and it tires your mind.
Tryin' to love two women is tearing me apart. Tryin' to love two women is tearing me apart. One's got my money, the other's got my heart. It's a long, hard grind and it tires your mind.
posted
Don't engage in a hypothetical debate with Dag. He loves it way too much. And the annoying thing is, he's usually right. At least more right than wrong.
Although I suspect if polygamy became common practice, books upon books of law would be made to address the issue.
And Beverly - we would never, ever have considered making that observation. Really.
posted
I think an important question to ask is, do you think polygamy will ever be found legal in the United States again? I mean, considering how hard it is to legally define marriage these days, polygamy will most likely come into the equation sometime eventually.
One thing for its eventual legalization is the loose definition these days of what "freedom" as expressed in the Constitution means. The Judicial may go back and forth on the subject, depending on what Circut Court it is brought. I don't think the current make-up of the Supreme Court would uphold the illegality of the practice, although they might avoid the issue by not hearing the case.
Yet, I don't believe that there is enough people who support it to see any changes at the Legislative level. Both Conservatives and Liberals seem to have qualms about the practice. Conservatives because of their belief in the fundimental tradition of man and woman as a couple. Liberals because of what they see as Woman's rights issues. Even mainstream Mormons are currently very hostile toward the practice -- at least as much as the general public.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
That being said, I see no reason why the standards and sensibilities of people might change in the near or far future.
Without rekindling the old debate, homosexuality used to be unthinkable and ruthlessly suppressed. Now it's more mainstream and acceptable than it ever has been before.
quote:Just because polygamy does not have a good track record when judged on a culture-wide basis, does not mean to me that it is inherently unequal or oppressive to women.
Let's see: it has a bad track record, has always been under unequal terms, and has always been biased towards men. Gee, that's pretty darn good proof of its inherent weakness right there.
quote:Rather than judging polygamy on the basis of culture-wide trends, I would look at individual polygamous marriages. Can you say that it is impossible for a good polygamous marriage to exist, that there is something inherent in the concept that prevents it? I think you cannot.
*looks back at all examples throughout history*
Yes, yes I can.
quote:I think it takes great care and dedication, and a high level of interpersonal and spiritual commitment on the part of all participants, but I think it can work, and that there are many individual examples of it throughout history.
No, what you are pointing out are either religious mythological examples or exceptions to the rule, neither of which will count as empirical data when compared to the vast majority and cultural trends in each of the cases where polygamy was either the norm or allowed.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think the current make-up of the Supreme Court would uphold the illegality of the practice, although they might avoid the issue by not hearing the case.
I'd bet a lot that they would uphold laws banning polygamy. I'm not even sure it would be close - there's a good shot at unanimity there.
quote: No, what you are pointing out are either religious mythological examples or exceptions to the rule, neither of which will count as empirical data when compared to the vast majority and cultural trends in each of the cases where polygamy was either the norm or allowed.
So um, what about monogamy? That is way out too. Just look at the poor history of sexual inequality.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty surprised that beyond one mention of polyamorists by Justa, and a very few subtle hints, no one has discussed the growing population of social-liberal polygamists.
quote:Polyamory means "loving more than one". This love may be sexual, emotional, spiritual, or any combination thereof, according to the desires and agreements of the individuals involved, but you needn't wear yourself out trying to figure out ways to fit fondness for apple pie, or filial piety, or a passion for the Saint Paul Saints baseball club into it. "Polyamorous" is also used as a descriptive term by people who are open to more than one relationship even if they are not currently involved in more than one. (Heck, some are involved in less than one.) Some people think the definition is a bit loose, but it's got to be fairly roomy to fit the wide range of poly arrangements out there.
I know that there is a relatively large community in Boston (at least 40?) of people who feel more inclined to polyamory than monogamy. I've had long discussions with a few, and they believe that this is how they're happiest. One person said that he's very high maintenance, and requires several people to fulfill the kind of emotional requirements he has. Another person says that she isn't interested in spending the rest of her life with one single person, because she needs some sort of variety (my words, not hers). As far as I've seen, Poly-Boston has a pretty high bisexual population, but they range all over the place.
I know you're discussing the "ins and outs" of the assumed traditional model, but you should be aware that the other is a growing methodology.
quote:I don't think the current make-up of the Supreme Court would uphold the illegality of the practice, although they might avoid the issue by not hearing the case.
"I'd bet a lot that they would uphold laws banning polygamy. I'm not even sure it would be close - there's a good shot at unanimity there."
Why? If a state decided to allow polygamous marraiges, a decision that seems to be in their jurisdiction since they can define marraige to include homosexuality, what right would the federal government have to stop it? (Aside from a Constitutional Ammendment of course )
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought you were discussing the court upholding a state law banning polygamy when you said, "I don't think the current make-up of the Supreme Court would uphold the illegality of the practice, although they might avoid the issue by not hearing the case."
As far as I know, only Utah is the subject of a national law banning polygamy; every other state could probably get away with passing a law to legalize it.
posted
Dabbler, the problem with polyamory is that it is almost, in nearly every case, dealing with at least one or two bisexuals, indicating that some form of homosexual contact goes on at some point.
Good luck trying to sell that one to the religious groups who used to practice polygamy. Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If a state decided to allow polygamous marraiges, a decision that seems to be in their jurisdiction since they can define marraige to include homosexuality, what right would the federal government have to stop it?
Actually, the federal government is already cutting the feet out from under states' ability to legalize homosexual marriage, too. The DoMA was one step, but further steps to deny federal marriage rights is another. I wouldn't doubt for a second if more was being done as well. The federal government has been trumping state law for over a century now. Where have you been? Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why? If a state decided to allow polygamous marraiges, a decision that seems to be in their jurisdiction since they can define marraige to include homosexuality, what right would the federal government have to stop it? (Aside from a Constitutional Ammendment of course )
Touche! Of course, if angry mobs start coming after you, threatening to confiscate your most precious, sacred, property, you've got a problem on your hands.
*thinking of the events that led up to the LDS church abandoning the practice of polygamy*
posted
Then it was a bad point. Are we going to start the whole "if homosexuality, them polygamy!" argument here? That would be its only use.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it would not be its only use. Why do people have so much trouble conceiving that a group of people might actually want to live polygamous? I don't particularly, but that is besides the point. I believe I provided some very specific examples.
Homosexual marriages and polygamist marriages are not exactly the same thing, but the parallels are definitely there.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, the federal government is already cutting the feet out from under states' ability to legalize homosexual marriage, too. The DoMA was one step, but further steps to deny federal marriage rights is another. I wouldn't doubt for a second if more was being done as well. The federal government has been trumping state law for over a century now. Where have you been?
Actually, the DoMA can easily be said to reinforce state's rights, by making sure states can choose which types of marriages to recognize. NOTHING in the DoMA interferes with the rights of a state to legalize same-sex unions.
And the amendment cannot really be called a federal action - amendments require more state than federal involvement.
posted
It's because of the stigma of un-equality in our very equal-centered culture. That's one of the reasons why people are fighting so hard in favor of homosexual marriage, because we have *got* to be fair and equal.
If a woman says she wants to be in a polygynous marriage, she is automatically "brainwashed" and needs to be protected from herself. Because, why on earth would she want that? (For me this is a bit of an honest question, but it is meant tongue-in-cheek.)
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then it was a bad point. Are we going to start the whole "if homosexuality, them polygamy!" argument here? That would be its only use.
S/he (not sure, sorry) wasn't saying anything about "if homosexuality, then polygamy." S/he was comparing the legal power of states to enact either. And the legal powers and situations are similar, except I bet fewer state consitutions will be interpreted to require polygamy.
The homosexual marriage debate has great relevance to polygamy, even though the two are not identical. If nothing else, the tactics from gay marriage advocates could be used by polygamy advocates.
posted
Everyone, sing along with Rebbecca Lynn Howard:
quote: I need a vacation from my life Me and my husband we need a wife Somebody who's sole ambition is laundry I wanna fall asleep on "MY" patio swing While somebody else does the dishes and cleans Mariachi's could stroll through the yard and play softly Wouldn't even have to leave 2523 General George Patton Drive And I need a vacation from my life
quote:Actually, the DoMA can easily be said to reinforce state's rights, by making sure states can choose which types of marriages to recognize. NOTHING in the DoMA interferes with the rights of a state to legalize same-sex unions.
No, what it does in intentionally set forth the precedent for states to deny homosexual marriage (by being so nice as to define "spouse"). Also, it goes forth to 'reinforce' states' rights (read: keeps people from taking a case to federal court) by not saying that all marriages don't necessarily get recognized across state lines, but strictly homosexual ones. In doing so, it hampers a state's right to validity in the realm of marriage by effectively nullifying the ability for individuals to have their marriage rights enforced. Basically, it gives with one hand and takes (more, IMO) with the other.
quote:And the amendment cannot really be called a federal action - amendments require more state than federal involvement.
That's like saying a state's constitution cannot really be called a state action, since districts vote on it. That's a silly argument, similar to the civilian who yells to the cop, "I pay your salary!" Sure, it's technically true, but no one civilian (just as no one state) can dictate to the force as a whole (or the federal government as a whole). It simply doesn't work that way. A state can work within federal legislature to create or alter federal laws, but it cannot trump or dictate them to the federal government.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you and I agree for the most part Bev - I can't say that I would enjoy the situation any more than you would.
But if public opinion swells to the point that the concept is equal and acceptable, then so be it.
Equal rites being what they are, if you want to pursue such a relationship, you should have the right to do so.
As to your tounge and cheek commentary regarding brainwashing and conditioning - well, that's an old tactic that anyone will use against the people with opposing views. Sometimes it might even be true - but I think that's the exception rather than the rule.
quote:The homosexual marriage debate has great relevance to polygamy, even though the two are not identical. If nothing else, the tactics from gay marriage advocates could be used by polygamy advocates.
Wasn't this already attempted by that guy in Utah last year? The one with a bunch of "wives," some of whom were not even 18?
Just because someone uses the same or similar tactics does not make the cause the same. If that were the case, then wars of aggression around the world would be justified by the actions of a few (like the US). You need more justification than "they're doing it too!"
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's like saying a state's constitution cannot really be called a state action, since districts vote on it. That's a silly argument, similar to the civilian who yells to the cop, "I pay your salary!" Sure, it's technically true, but no one civilian (just as no one state) can dictate to the force as a whole (or the federal government as a whole). It simply doesn't work that way. A state can work within federal legislature to create or alter federal laws, but it cannot trump or dictate them to the federal government.
You're take on DoMA is the other way of looking at it, of course. But you're wrong about how you characterized amendments. 3/4 of state legislators have to pass an amendment for it to become part of the constitution. What this means is that slightly more than 3/8 of all state legislators will have to cast a "yes" vote on it in order for the amendment to pass.
Districts don't vote directly on state constitutional changes or on laws - it's done strictly by popular vote. Federal amendments rerquire the actions of the state legislatures. Your attempt to equate my argument to your silly "I pay your salary" isn't even in the same conceptual ballpark.
quote:Wasn't this already attempted by that guy in Utah last year? The one with a bunch of "wives," some of whom were not even 18?
Just because someone uses the same or similar tactics does not make the cause the same. If that were the case, then wars of aggression around the world would be justified by the actions of a few (like the US). You need more justification than "they're doing it too!"
The tactics was only one example of why the homosexual marriage issue is related (not identical) to the polygamy issue. Many of the legal issues are very similar. Even more of the ethical issues are similar.
I favor one and not the other, so obviously I believe they are different. But the issues are similar enough that to decide that way requires reconciling the two issues in order to avoid being hypocritical.
posted
Hey, now, we made *no* mention of approving minors in polygyny. *Especially* in polygyny. Since brainwashing may indeed be used, you want to make good and sure the person is old enough to make the decision for themselves legally.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think if there is no child abuse or spousal abuse let them alone. Now of course that is a huge if and you have to define abuse etc. But I am willing to believe that there are some families that this arrangement works for and that they are not engaging in abuse.
I caught the last hour of the A&E show. I was appalled at the woman who left her husband and 11 children to be the third wife of one of the polygamists. I found that more upsetting than the other women they interviewed. I had to laugh at the comment that the men who engage in polygamy do so because they have a need for more variety. I told my dh if he has that need I'll work really hard to have several personalities for him and I'll choose one each day Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your attempt to equate my argument to your silly "I pay your salary" isn't even in the same conceptual ballpark.
I bet I could make it work in an "official" semantical debate.
I realize that the way I characterize the DoMA is simply one way of looking at it, but I'm looking at it from the prespective of who got the best out of the deal. As far as I can see, the federal level got far more out of the deal long-term. Just the fact that SCOTUS won't have to deal with this as an issue seems to weigh it heavily in favor of the federal government.
But that's a whole debate in itself.
quote:The tactics was only one example of why the homosexual marriage issue is related (not identical) to the polygamy issue. Many of the legal issues are very similar. Even more of the ethical issues are similar.
Which legal issues? Get rid of the DoMA, and federal spousal rights don't even need to be re-written. There are some that still use "husband" or "wife" instead of "spouse" in existence, but wouldn't that also benefit women's rights (and clear up any SS snafus)? They wouldn't need to be re-written either, just revision of one word (not the same ). There still exist sodomy laws and anti-black legislation in some states, but the possibility of getting anyone convicted for breaking them is slim to none.
I'd be curious to hear about the ethical issues that don't have to do with religious groups being indignant over it.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whoops! I just realized I was derailing things. Dagonee, you don't have to reply in-depth if you don't wanna. Or if you want to jump to a new topic for it, I'm cool with that, too. My basic gist is that the legal issues are of far lesser consequence with homosexuality than they would be for polygamy. No need to go into detail about the rest. Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Briefly, then, because I think we might be talking about two different things:
Civil marriage in the U.S., excluding Mass., is a package of legal rights, responsibilities, and restrictions currently available to a couple consisting of a man and a woman.
Both same sex marriage and poly-marriage are about changing one of the "terms" of traditional marriage - the number and the sex requirement. Both require some changes to the legal framework of marriage in order to implement, assuming we don't want to end up with separate institutions.
Same sex marriage requires that any difference between the roles husband and wife be written out of the law. This has been done to a great extent. Most of the places the distinction survives are clerical in nature. There are a few substantive areas left (rape laws, for example, in some states). This has been an ongoing trend since Married Women's Property Acts were first proposed.
Poly-marriage requires far more substantial changes to the legal framework. For example, must each poly unit be discrete (that is, can a single person belong to at most one poly marriage)? If not, the complications in property law alone are almost impossible to manage. If so, the complications are still extremely difficult.
The existence of the legal civil concept of marriage carries societal costs - administration, divorces, etc. The benefits to society are two-fold: some legal transactions become less complicated because a convenient "default" designee is available for a host of legal decisions. Same sex marriage shares this advantage; poly-marriage does not.
The second class of benefits are intangible but important. Without going into detail, I think the principle societal justification for marriage as an institution was as a means to help provide for the creation and upbringing of future citizens. For various reasons, society decided the monagamous form of marriage was better than the polygamous form for this purpose. Reproduction within the marriage is not possible in same sex unions, but there are feasible societal benefits to non-reproducing couples forming lasting bonds See Jim-me's recent thread on unmarried males for one example.
The crux of the matter, in my opinion, is that the benefits of legal marriage can be provided to same-sex couples without compromising the institution of civil marriage's ability to provide the legal and societal benefits. Altering marriage to allow for poly-marriages would make it less useful on a legal level.
In my view, which holds a both a practical and moral preference for traditional two-person heterosexual marriage, the government can give some people additional rights and no cost by allowing civil gay marriages; it cannot do so by providing polygamous marriages.
All that being said, it's necessary to say why alteration of one term of traditional marriage is the right thing to do in the name of personal autonomy, and altering the other term isn't. That's what I meant by the ethical dimension being similar, even though I reach opposite conclusions.
Dagonee *Believe it or not, that was brief. I could qualify every paragraph of this 20 different ways.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Poly-marriage requires far more substantial changes to the legal framework.
That was the whole point of why I said they are not the same. Not only are the number of things required to change greater, but as you also already said, most of the things that would need to change have already been done for other things. The only law to go out the door would be the DoMA.
quote:All that being said, it's necessary to say why alteration of one term of traditional marriage is the right thing to do in the name of personal autonomy, and altering the other term isn't. That's what I meant by the ethical dimension being similar, even though I reach opposite conclusions.
I understand, but the ethical issues are really more moral issues than real ethical dilemmas. As far as the legal issue goes, I think you and I are saying the same thing with different conclusions.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The things that bother me about polygamy don't necessarily have to do with the living arrangements freely decided upon by consenting adults. Look, I'm not interested in sharing a man, but if there are women who are, more power to them.
Where I have the huge problem is in the practice of some of the polygamous sects that have gotten quite a bit of publicity lately. Women are not given a choice of whom they marry - they are told who they are going to marry. Even worse, if that man gets on the bad side of the leadership, the leadership sometimes take the wives away and "assign" them to another man.
And then there is the issue of age. I've read quite a bit about some of these sects, and apparently they make a habit of marrying off girls as young as 13 or 14 years old, often to men much older than they are, and often to relatives. Then, if the girl objects or tries to leave, she is punished. That is just not right. Not in any universe I understand.
Another problem is the reported refusal of the men to support their multiple families. Instead, they encourage their women to apply for welfare benefits. In at least some of these sects, the government is seen as evil and ripping the government off is seen as a great game as well as a holy obligation.
So, perhaps the problem is not inherent in polygamy but in adherence to authoritarian religious sects. But it is a problem, and I haven't seen, in the things I've been reading, that the governments of the states where large numbers of these people live - Utah and Arizona come to mind immediately - going very far out of their way to prevent these abuses. And I'm sorry, but abuses like these are not covered by "freedom of religion", IMO. Not when some of the participants are not given any right to say no if they wish.
To recap: I'm not worried about what consenting adults do in private - but I think that they should be consenting and they should be adults, and if the men are going to father all of these children, they should take moral and financial responsibility for them.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread is moving so fast that I'm always posting like 3 pages behind, <laughs> but seriously, U of U law guy, why does it not occur to you that men can do housework? It seems not to be occurring to anyone on this thread that women are no more inherently endowed with housework ability than men.
I think polyandry would be great. To me that is the natural family unit. One wife and two or three husbands. That would just fit, you know? It works. On lots of different levels. I could certainly support two husbands. Three might be a stretch, but if at least one of them worked outside the home, I'm sure we could manage.
I do think people should be legally allowed to enter into the marriage relationships that suit them, however, I can see the societal reasons for keeping polygamy against the law.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Comparing how I keep a bathroom to how my friend Dennis keeps a bathroom . . . I'm going to have to say you'd be bettter off with him as your housekeeper.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
ak:"but seriously, U of U law guy, why does it not occur to you that men can do housework?"
But it does occur to me. I do a lot of housework myself. At various times in my marriage, I have done more housework than my wife, sometimes a lot more. Even now, when I work 12 hour days, I wash the dishes, bathe the kids, dust, vacuum, take out the garbage, sweep and mop the floors and make dinner at least twice a week. My wife takes care of the kids during the day, cleans the bathrooms, cooks dinner four times a week, does most of the grocery shopping, vacuums on the days I don't, and generally keeps things tidy. My sister-in-law makes dinner one night a week, empties the dishwasher, and babysits when asked.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I found that more upsetting than the other women they interviewed. I had to laugh at the comment that the men who engage in polygamy do so because they have a need for more variety. I told my dh if he has that need I'll work really hard to have several personalities for him and I'll choose one each day 
