I’ve certainly heard the argument that polygamy is tied into oppressive social structures, and therefore legitimizing it would be bad.
Same argument can and has been applied to other kinds of marriage.
Would you say this is rationalization?
Yes. Because legalizing such marriage would if anything improve the legal standing and options available to the women in such marriages. It would also ensure fairer distribution of resources, not to mention custody issues in case one of the parents dies. Also Polygamous marriages in the US and Europe are a fact on the ground, a social reality, that we should deal with. Refusing to do so is just perpetuating discrimination.
FWIW I’m very skeptical of the whole “status explains everything” notion in general.
Status doesn’t explain everything, it does explain situations like this.
I’ve certainly heard the argument that polygamy is tied into oppressive social structures, and therefore legitimizing it would be bad.
Same argument can and has been applied to other kinds of marriage.
On the one hand, the argument doesn’t need to be correct to be the (or a) real reason. On the other, I’d expect more people to be more convinced that polygamy is more oppressive (as currently instantiated) than vanilla marriage (and other forms, such as arranged marriages or marriage of children to adults, are probably more strongly opposed).
When you said above that status was the real reason LW-associates oppose legal polygamy, you were implying that these people are not actually convinced of these issues, or only pretend to care about them for status reasons.
I’m in a happy polygamous relationship and I know I’m not the only one.
Certainly! I’d like to clarify that I don’t think polyamory is intrinsically oppressive, and that I am on the whole pretty darn progressive (philosophically) regarding sexual / relationship rights etc. (That is, I think it probably ideally should be legal. There are probably additional political concerns but politics makes me ill.) I think it’s kinda weird that government is in the marriage business to begin with, but probably it is useful to have some sort of structure for dealing with the related tax / property / etc. concerns. I think that polygamy does occur in some cultures that are oppressive towards women, but I don’t really have a notion of how much a part of that oppression it facilitates, and I don’t necessarily think that’s a legitimate factor in whether to legalize the institution. I’m on your side philosophically / politically.
When you said above that status was the real reason LW-associates oppose legal polygamy, you were implying that these people are not actually convinced of these issues, or only pretend to care about them for status reasons.
If polygamous people where high status they wouldn’t voice nor perhaps even think of these objections.
I think it’s kinda weird that government is in the marriage business to begin with, but probably it is useful to have some sort of structure for dealing with the related tax / property / etc. concerns.
I tend to agree. Customizable contracts would be the best solution. This way we wouldn’t straight jacket people into one size fits all marriage. Some people might like marriages where infidelity is grounds for divorce and the cheating party is penalized somehow. Some people might like marriages that have to be renewed every 10 years, to minimize any hassle with any potential divorce or allow a time out on the relationship. ect.
This would make everyone from the traditionalists to those seeking novel arrangements happy.
Pretty seriously, I’m not sure why you would think I’m not. Is there something wrong with people having options to customize the legal arrangements of their relationships? And with the decline of classical marriage shouldn’t we encourage all such relationships to increase social cohesion as well as contribute towards creating better environments for raising children?
Pretty seriously, I’m not sure why you would think I’m not.
Because I find it very unlikely that your proposal would make traditionalists happy, if implemented, but it was plausible that you just meant that part as hyperbole.
It wouldn’t make mainstream “conservatives” happy, but that is simply because they are so utterly ignorant to how legally different marriage is today compared to a few decades or worse don’t mind it at all, not minding the incongruity. It would make traditionalists happy. They could recreate much of what they miss about modern marriage.
Take for example penalizing the partner who is cheating in divorce settlements, this is something I know no Slovenian court will ever take into consideration but something people who actually want a traditional marriage would love. In general maybe some people would like to make divorces more difficult because they in general don’t approve of them. Maybe some people think default custody should de facto lie with the husband instead of the wife (as it does currently). ect. ect.
Before you think there aren’t any people who look at it this way, note that I’ve seen enthusiasm for this concept on very hardcore Christian right wing blogs like the Orthosphere and The Thinking Housewife.
Fair enough. If mainstream soi-disant conservatives aren’t on the continuum you were referencing, then I was simply confused about what you were referencing.
Mainstream conservatives will be happy with it too. They aren’t very clever that way, you can change almost anything you want and 30 years later they won’t question it seriously any-more. ;)
As someone who was paying some attention to American politics back then, it sure does seem to me that the people usually described as mainstream conservatives in the U.S. are continuing to object strenuously to many of the same things they were objecting strenuously to in 1982. Are you suggesting that I’m mistaken in that perception? That all of that stuff is an exception that falls into the gap between “almost anything” and “anything”? That the people in question aren’t mainstream conservatives? Other?
I am also not sure how to reconcile:
It wouldn’t make mainstream “conservatives” happy,
with:
Mainstream conservatives will be happy with it too.
I assume you’re communicating something key with your use of quotations (otherwise you’d simply be contradicting yourself), but it’s too subtle a distinction for me to interpret reliably.
In context its perfectly obvious. The second quote has a implied “eventually”.
As someone who was paying some attention to American politics back then, it sure does seem to me that the people usually described as mainstream conservatives in the U.S. are continuing to object strenuously to many of the same things they were objecting strenuously to in 1982.
Don’t be silly. On economic matters yes, on cultural and social matters the right has utterly lost except perhaps on the issue of abortion. The very fact that today’s debate is about gay marriage (to borrow the issue the OP brought up), should be an indicator of how far to the left 2012 is from 1982 on such issues. How many democrats would have even considered supporting such a notion then?
Mark my words in 2042 conservatives will be defending gay marriage as an integral part of the bedrock of Western civilization.
I didn’t mean to be rude, so I hope I didn’t come of as such. It seemed obvious to me because in the context I was talking about them being “ok with anything” after several decades passing in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way, while in the first one I was describing a proposal I’d like to see implemented right away and how people would currently feel about it.
It wouldn’t make mainstream “conservatives” happy,
Mainstream conservatives will be happy with it too. They aren’t very clever that way, you can change almost anything you want and 30 years later they won’t question it seriously any-more. ;)
As to the meaning of the quotation marks in the first one, I put them there because I think conservatives aren’t very good at conserving much of anything.
A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.
--William F. Buckley, Jr. in National Review (1955)
The entire movement he and those like him helped create, has only proven itself capable of standing athwart history and yelling “Retreat!”. The politicians associated with that intellectual group are best characterized as standing behind history, yelling: “Wait! Let my voters catch up!”
Everything I see says that Buckley was a really honorable man, simply a good person. That ought to count, a little. (I agree that his movement did little good in practice, though.)
Everything I see says that Buckley was a really honorable man, simply a good person.
My impression is rather more mixed. Buckley, 1986:
But if the time has not come, and may never come, for public identification [of people with HIV], what then of private identification?
Everyone detected with AIDS should be tatooed in the upper forearm, to protect common-needle users, and on the buttocks, to prevent the victimization of other homosexuals.
Someone, 20 years ago, suggested a discreet tattoo the site of which would alert the prospective partner to the danger of proceeding as had been planned. But the author of the idea was treated as though he had been schooled in Buchenwald, and the idea was not widely considered, but maybe it is up now for reconsideration.
[Edited to fix paragraph break in that first Buckley quote.]
I understand why it seemed obvious to you. I also understand that your dismissive rhetorical tone isn’t intended to be rude.
Getting back to content:
I agree with you that if we wait long enough everyone who considers themselves conservative will approve of whatever social changes we make, supposing those social changes last that long.
I don’t believe that implementing your proposal right away will make conservatives currently happy.
I don’t have a clear sense of what you mean by “traditionalists.”
There exists a non-empty set of issues X such that 1982 conservatives agree more with 2012 conservatives on X than they do with 1982 anti-conservatives. There also exists a non-empty set X2 such that 1982 conservatives agree the same or more with 1982 anti-conservatives than with 2012 conservatives on X2. I am not sure whether (X2 > X1) or (X2 < X1) by any interesting metric, and I’m fairly certain that (X1 > .1X2).
I agree with you that if we wait long enough everyone who considers themselves conservative will approve of whatever social changes we make, supposing those social changes last that long.
I don’t believe that implementing your proposal right away will make conservatives currently happy.
We agree on these points.
I don’t have a clear sense of what you mean by “traditionalists.”
Basically people who are nerds about adhering to some older traditional style Christianity. Some of them are protestants but their intellectual core as you may have guessed from the blogs are Catholic and Orthodox. As odd as this might sound American Evangelical fundamentalists are actually mostly practising a young take on the religion.
I am not sure whether (X2 > X1) or (X2 < X1) by any interesting metric, and I’m fairly certain that (X1 > .1X2).
I think X1 probably consists mostly of economic issues.
Assuming the problems with that change don’t become obvious within the time period. For an example of this happening, look at the problems caused by say no-fault divorce.
To stick with your example I don’t think I’ve seen mainstream conservatives notice anything of the kind. Do keep in mind how I use conservative in this context and how I differentiated them from traditionalists worthy of the name. Now besides the traditionalists and conservatives you have other currents of right wing thought who notice such things, but they are pretty marginalized. A few blogs on the internet focusing and analysing this problem is unfortunately a very minor phenomena unlikely to result in social change.
Take for example penalizing the partner who is cheating in divorce settlements, this is something I know no Slovenian court will ever take into consideration but something people who actually want a traditional marriage would love. In general maybe some people would like to make divorces more difficult because they in general don’t mode approve of them. Maybe some people think default custody should de facto lie with the husband instead of the wife (as it does currently). ect. ect.
Careful, you need to weaken the political power of feminism first, otherwise they will try to pass restrictions on the types of marriage contracts to be enforced, similar to the restrictions on employment contracts.
It isn’t fully equivalent. Out-group polygamous marriages are a-ok for us, one sees little lobbying on the UN level to forbid polygamous marriage. But I think Muslim immigrants in Europe and Mormon sects in the US are low status in-group members for most citizens when thinking about such issues.
Basically in-group out-group determines who has moral relevance. Status determines with who you wish to associate or disassociate.
After some thought, I’m still unsatisfied with “status” as an explanation of the phenomena. If we must use Hansonian terminology, I think the better explanation is signalling—specifically, signalling tribal affiliation. “who you wish to associate or disassociate” is either very imprecise or circular.
Additionally, I’m uncertain about Hansonian analysis of this phenomena because it makes the thought processes seem so deliberate and considered—when real world examples don’t seem all that reflexively considered. I’m doubtful that people hostile to French Muslims could produce a coherent explanation on demand, and if you waited for them to collect their thoughts, they’d say things isomorphic to “Muslims in France are behaving unFrench.” (whether that is the same thing as in-group bias is a separate question—I do think your explanation of in-group bias artificially narrows its scope)
Yes thank you for the correction.
Same argument can and has been applied to other kinds of marriage.
Yes. Because legalizing such marriage would if anything improve the legal standing and options available to the women in such marriages. It would also ensure fairer distribution of resources, not to mention custody issues in case one of the parents dies. Also Polygamous marriages in the US and Europe are a fact on the ground, a social reality, that we should deal with. Refusing to do so is just perpetuating discrimination.
Status doesn’t explain everything, it does explain situations like this.
On the one hand, the argument doesn’t need to be correct to be the (or a) real reason. On the other, I’d expect more people to be more convinced that polygamy is more oppressive (as currently instantiated) than vanilla marriage (and other forms, such as arranged marriages or marriage of children to adults, are probably more strongly opposed).
.
When you said above that status was the real reason LW-associates oppose legal polygamy, you were implying that these people are not actually convinced of these issues, or only pretend to care about them for status reasons.
Certainly! I’d like to clarify that I don’t think polyamory is intrinsically oppressive, and that I am on the whole pretty darn progressive (philosophically) regarding sexual / relationship rights etc. (That is, I think it probably ideally should be legal. There are probably additional political concerns but politics makes me ill.) I think it’s kinda weird that government is in the marriage business to begin with, but probably it is useful to have some sort of structure for dealing with the related tax / property / etc. concerns. I think that polygamy does occur in some cultures that are oppressive towards women, but I don’t really have a notion of how much a part of that oppression it facilitates, and I don’t necessarily think that’s a legitimate factor in whether to legalize the institution. I’m on your side philosophically / politically.
If polygamous people where high status they wouldn’t voice nor perhaps even think of these objections.
I tend to agree. Customizable contracts would be the best solution. This way we wouldn’t straight jacket people into one size fits all marriage. Some people might like marriages where infidelity is grounds for divorce and the cheating party is penalized somehow. Some people might like marriages that have to be renewed every 10 years, to minimize any hassle with any potential divorce or allow a time out on the relationship. ect.
This would make everyone from the traditionalists to those seeking novel arrangements happy.
For some reason I’m picturing the Creative Commons licenses.
I had exactly that as a sort of model in my brain. :)
I find this quite aesthetically pleasing :D
How seriously do you mean this claim?
Pretty seriously, I’m not sure why you would think I’m not. Is there something wrong with people having options to customize the legal arrangements of their relationships? And with the decline of classical marriage shouldn’t we encourage all such relationships to increase social cohesion as well as contribute towards creating better environments for raising children?
Because I find it very unlikely that your proposal would make traditionalists happy, if implemented, but it was plausible that you just meant that part as hyperbole.
It wouldn’t make mainstream “conservatives” happy, but that is simply because they are so utterly ignorant to how legally different marriage is today compared to a few decades or worse don’t mind it at all, not minding the incongruity. It would make traditionalists happy. They could recreate much of what they miss about modern marriage.
Take for example penalizing the partner who is cheating in divorce settlements, this is something I know no Slovenian court will ever take into consideration but something people who actually want a traditional marriage would love. In general maybe some people would like to make divorces more difficult because they in general don’t approve of them. Maybe some people think default custody should de facto lie with the husband instead of the wife (as it does currently). ect. ect.
Before you think there aren’t any people who look at it this way, note that I’ve seen enthusiasm for this concept on very hardcore Christian right wing blogs like the Orthosphere and The Thinking Housewife.
Fair enough. If mainstream soi-disant conservatives aren’t on the continuum you were referencing, then I was simply confused about what you were referencing.
Mainstream conservatives will be happy with it too. They aren’t very clever that way, you can change almost anything you want and 30 years later they won’t question it seriously any-more. ;)
As someone who was paying some attention to American politics back then, it sure does seem to me that the people usually described as mainstream conservatives in the U.S. are continuing to object strenuously to many of the same things they were objecting strenuously to in 1982. Are you suggesting that I’m mistaken in that perception? That all of that stuff is an exception that falls into the gap between “almost anything” and “anything”? That the people in question aren’t mainstream conservatives? Other?
I am also not sure how to reconcile:
with:
I assume you’re communicating something key with your use of quotations (otherwise you’d simply be contradicting yourself), but it’s too subtle a distinction for me to interpret reliably.
In context its perfectly obvious. The second quote has a implied “eventually”.
Don’t be silly. On economic matters yes, on cultural and social matters the right has utterly lost except perhaps on the issue of abortion. The very fact that today’s debate is about gay marriage (to borrow the issue the OP brought up), should be an indicator of how far to the left 2012 is from 1982 on such issues. How many democrats would have even considered supporting such a notion then?
Mark my words in 2042 conservatives will be defending gay marriage as an integral part of the bedrock of Western civilization.
Thank you for explaining it despite considering it perfectly obvious.
I didn’t mean to be rude, so I hope I didn’t come of as such. It seemed obvious to me because in the context I was talking about them being “ok with anything” after several decades passing in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way, while in the first one I was describing a proposal I’d like to see implemented right away and how people would currently feel about it.
As to the meaning of the quotation marks in the first one, I put them there because I think conservatives aren’t very good at conserving much of anything.
The entire movement he and those like him helped create, has only proven itself capable of standing athwart history and yelling “Retreat!”. The politicians associated with that intellectual group are best characterized as standing behind history, yelling: “Wait! Let my voters catch up!”
“It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea.”—Robert Anton Wilson
Everything I see says that Buckley was a really honorable man, simply a good person. That ought to count, a little. (I agree that his movement did little good in practice, though.)
My impression is rather more mixed. Buckley, 1986:
Buckley, 2006:
[Edited to fix paragraph break in that first Buckley quote.]
I understand why it seemed obvious to you.
I also understand that your dismissive rhetorical tone isn’t intended to be rude.
Getting back to content:
I agree with you that if we wait long enough everyone who considers themselves conservative will approve of whatever social changes we make, supposing those social changes last that long.
I don’t believe that implementing your proposal right away will make conservatives currently happy.
I don’t have a clear sense of what you mean by “traditionalists.”
There exists a non-empty set of issues X such that 1982 conservatives agree more with 2012 conservatives on X than they do with 1982 anti-conservatives. There also exists a non-empty set X2 such that 1982 conservatives agree the same or more with 1982 anti-conservatives than with 2012 conservatives on X2. I am not sure whether (X2 > X1) or (X2 < X1) by any interesting metric, and I’m fairly certain that (X1 > .1X2).
We agree on these points.
Basically people who are nerds about adhering to some older traditional style Christianity. Some of them are protestants but their intellectual core as you may have guessed from the blogs are Catholic and Orthodox. As odd as this might sound American Evangelical fundamentalists are actually mostly practising a young take on the religion.
I think X1 probably consists mostly of economic issues.
That is certainly consistent with a popular narrative about American conservatism now and 40 years ago. Whether statistics back it up, I don’t know.
Assuming the problems with that change don’t become obvious within the time period. For an example of this happening, look at the problems caused by say no-fault divorce.
To stick with your example I don’t think I’ve seen mainstream conservatives notice anything of the kind. Do keep in mind how I use conservative in this context and how I differentiated them from traditionalists worthy of the name. Now besides the traditionalists and conservatives you have other currents of right wing thought who notice such things, but they are pretty marginalized. A few blogs on the internet focusing and analysing this problem is unfortunately a very minor phenomena unlikely to result in social change.
Careful, you need to weaken the political power of feminism first, otherwise they will try to pass restrictions on the types of marriage contracts to be enforced, similar to the restrictions on employment contracts.
Why isn’t it the other way around?
Do you mean that status is a better explanation that in-group/out-group bias, or that status is equivalent to in-group/out-group bias?
It isn’t fully equivalent. Out-group polygamous marriages are a-ok for us, one sees little lobbying on the UN level to forbid polygamous marriage. But I think Muslim immigrants in Europe and Mormon sects in the US are low status in-group members for most citizens when thinking about such issues.
Basically in-group out-group determines who has moral relevance. Status determines with who you wish to associate or disassociate.
After some thought, I’m still unsatisfied with “status” as an explanation of the phenomena. If we must use Hansonian terminology, I think the better explanation is signalling—specifically, signalling tribal affiliation. “who you wish to associate or disassociate” is either very imprecise or circular.
Additionally, I’m uncertain about Hansonian analysis of this phenomena because it makes the thought processes seem so deliberate and considered—when real world examples don’t seem all that reflexively considered. I’m doubtful that people hostile to French Muslims could produce a coherent explanation on demand, and if you waited for them to collect their thoughts, they’d say things isomorphic to “Muslims in France are behaving unFrench.” (whether that is the same thing as in-group bias is a separate question—I do think your explanation of in-group bias artificially narrows its scope)