Sunday, December 21, 2008

Polygyny (only if necessary...?)

"Question:Do you want for your sista what you want for yourself or do you feel that a man should only be committed to one woman and not allow polygyny? It's either one or the other, for the lack of available good men will not allow both to exist. It's a choice between what WE Need to do and what YOU WANT to do. Which one do you choose?"

Let's establish a few principles before we get into the meat of the matter. I feel it's necessary to do this to deter any irrational emotional feelings trying to surface preventing us from gaining an understanding. Remember, everything we do(our ways and actions) should be based on principles. Principles are what you know and understand. What you know about the situation and what you understand in obtaining the best part of it. If you don't know and understand, why would you do it? For it to come out wrong? There's two ways to do things, the right way and the better way. Why do it if your going to do it wrong? Winners practice so they get it right, champions practice so they don't get it wrong. The physical universe was built upon principles, and so should yours. Principles never change, although what principle you use can. For example, when I was single my principle was to do me as long as it didn't harm anyone else. Now that I have seeds, the principle is to do what's best for us. When I gained knowledge of self the principle became to do what's best for my people. The last principle mentioned still encompasses to do what's best for my family. The difference is whereas in the second principle prior to gaining KOS I may have kept a closed door, the last principle places us more in tune with the people, children, and families of the community. The principles that we should keep in mind as we read are these, but remember don't accept them unless you fully agree with them and if you do agree with them don't forget them when a irrational emotion pops up in your head. For this exhibits the law of non-contradiction, you can't say your fully about something then exhibit behavior that says otherwise. Right? The first principle is that our communities, our families, our children, are in a disarray right now and we need to do whatever we can do in our NATURAL abilities to rectify the problem. Is that agreed on? If not you need to stop reading right now and don't front to anybody like you care. We need to be willing to give our life for this, more so mentally and if need be physically. The mental life I'm referring to giving up is our ignorant ways. Physically I mean you would die for your own children, but would you die for your brother or sisters children. You would jump in front of a bullet to save your own child, would you do it for another child, just on the strength that it's the right thing to do? I would. My only request is that you treat my surviving children as your own. I'd do it even if I didn't think that you would. Not for you but for the child and the example I set. The second principle is what you want for yourself, you want for your sister. This doesn't mean material things, but the basic natural things in life that every woman deserves according to nature, food, water, clothing, shelter, a mate, children, a family, responsibility, self worth, and respect. Do you want that for your sister or not? And finally the third and last principle is just that, stick to the principles we acknowledged as oppossed to your emotions. We know that making decisions based purely on emotions can be consequential. Take anyone who has made bad decisions, including murders and rapist, it's usually due to emotions. Emotions not based on logic is dangerous, for oneself and our communties on a whole. Be emotional on a logical decision that you made. Not to say you wont have any negative emotions about it, but the logic of the first two principles, and the principle that all is one, should override and take presedent over any personal feelings you may have, and may even turn your negative emotion into a positive one. Like say if I give up my seat to an elderly caucasian woman and she calls me something derogatory. I won't feel bad because I did it, and would do it again, off the principle that it's right. With these forementioned principles, we can preceed with the preceedings this evening with equality.

For the record I would like to state that I am neither pro-polygyny nor am I anti-monogamy. My position is one woman to one man unless the ratio of women to men is 2:1 or greater to give every women(our sisters)the opportunity to be in a family. I state that because some of us when we hear the word polygyny we reduce it to a sexual way of life to satisfy a man's sexual desires. Coming from a man some may assume that I'm an advocate for polygyny. Let's explain what polygyny, polygamy, and polyandry is. Polygyny is a man having multiple female spouses. Polyandry is a woman having multiple male spouses. Polygamy is in general a person of one sex having multiple spouses of the opposite sex. Polyandry is the least recognized. Woman oppossed to polygyny like to cite polyandry as a valid rebuttal. The difference is polygyny is a natural way of life while polyandry isn't. Unless I get a overwhelming argument stating otherwise, woman do not neccessarily take to being penetrated by multiple partners. Besides, a man is the leader of his family and two men will NATURALLY go to war. A man will not WILLINGLY submit to another mans will, this would make him a psuedo-homosexual. I do feel that polygyny is a way of life that occurs naturally to reduce some of the ills of society due to a lack of qualified men such as prostitution, single parenting, and adultery, which in turn can lead to other things. My view of it as a way of life that occurs naturally as oppossed to a natural way of life is because I don't feel it should be practiced if not warranted. If the ratio of qualifed women to qualified men was 1 to 1, I would be against it, but it's not. The ratio of women to men is at least, at least 4 to 1. I know this and so does every half decent man due to the amount of attention thrown our direction due to the lack of good men. I understand the skepticism towards polygyny due to the lack of morals, discipline, and ethics in some of our men. Most of the men that women meet is based primarly on sexual attraction due to the clothes some women wear. I've intentional unintentional had bouts of celibacy passing up on woman I've only found physically attractive. For one reason or another I didn't see pursueing a serious relationship with them. Nor did I allow just a physical one as some of them had suggested. Ironically I began more attractive to them, maybe because they saw I had honorable intentions and respected them as black woman and not just sexual. If I knew them well enough I'd bring up my views on polygyny. With the standards I displayed towards them, they understood it wasn't based on sex. Understand this, I feel a man could and should be faithfull to one woman. Some advocates of polygyny feel that it's in a man's biological nature to want to be with more than one woman which I agree with. However this doesn't mean our wants should be acted upon especially in a committed relationship. Woman may find the want and the capability to be with more than one woman puzzling because they tie sex to their emotions of love while men may love a woman view sex as a recreation sport, the proverbial icing on the cake. History confirms this, it's in our nature to be explorers, voyagers, conquerors. The alpha gorilla, or the alpha lion, usually has a pack of females around him. One man can repopulate the world. To go against our nature would seem crazy, but that's just one aspect of our nature. We as black men are God by nature, and we have the freedom to be who we are as Gods, to put the mental over the instinctive physical. This is one of the ways that seperate us from the animal. We don't have to adhere to the physical, unlike a rapist or a homosexual. Which means that some things don't need to be explored. Some things don't need to be conquered. Especially an unknown. I know enough of some unknowns to leave it alone. I don't need to know what a hit of crack is like. What I'm saying is if you committed yourself to a woman without any discussions of polygyny or the possibility of it, be committed. Especially if she's handling her business at LEAST 2-3times a week, 4times and over I take my hat off to you. Personally I can be satisfied with one woman if we've discussed the abc's that I mentioned in U-N-I verse. Just because I find another woman attractive doesn't mean I'm not satisfied at home and I should pursue her. Realisticly, your woman may feel the same way about another man whether you want to admit it or not. Just because I'm at a restaurant and I'm looking at the meal on another plate doesn't mean I wasn't satisfied with the meal I just ate. They had a chicken meal which I can remember so vividly, but I'm great with my vegan meal. However, if it was a vegan meal, and nobody claimed it, that's a different case. My point is that I look at polygyny as a responsibility, as the right thing to do. Right meaning that it benefits the all. The gift I have to a woman of being a man, a father to her children, a lover, a friend, is not mine to deny when in my natural capability to be with more than one woman and it's in a woman's responsibility to be a sista to her sista.

A skeptical woman might say it wouldn't be best for me so how could it be best for all. Maybe it isn't the act of polygyny that's not best for you, maybe it's your mindset. If you were to change your mindset then maybe you would change your attitude. This is where the principles we established come into play, in particularly the second and third. You say what you want for your self you want for your sister right. Let's say we figure that a man should be faithful to one woman. We have ten women and five men. Each man settles down with one woman. How many lonely women do we have left? Five. Where does that leave them, with no children, forced into homosexuality or left to handle themselves unnaturally, or do you even care? Do you wish that on them? Do you wish that on yourself? What if you were one of the five lonely? Let's be serious here, we're attempting to come to an understanding to a solution to a real problem. What would eventually happen? The lonely women will do whatever it takes to seduce your man. You would too, be serious, if you wanted children. To think of artificial insemination, to intentional prefer to raise a child without a father is crazy. Crazy meaning not conducive to the physical or mental aspect of life. It's selfish without no regards to the mental betterment of the child. Especially when polygyny is a natural and valid option. And the example I gave is a 2 to 1 ratio, not the 4 to 1 that it most likely is. If food is scarce, for the betterment of your people what would you have to do?-share. If clothing is scarce, what would you have to do for the betterment of your people?-share. If there is a lack of men, what must you do for the betterment of your people?-share. Maybe you now can say okay I no longer disagree with polygyny, just not for me and my man. Should the other four men be left to bear the weight. So everyone else should do what's right, but not you though. Maybe you don't value the importance of men in our society and our homes because you see a lack of true men. I'm not talking about the men who still want to be like teenagers. I'm referring to the men who are so disciplined that instead of playing games they let you know what's what up front even if it means not having sex with you. You may pass these men by for someone who will play the game with you. You rather be lied to and have someone sneak behind your back then for a man to say what I have with you is what I have with you, what I have over here is what I have over here. These men do it because that's what it means to be a man, to put you in the know, and let you come to grips of what it is. They know the lack of available men. You want the realy real, so you know what it is? Or do you want the games and get whatever you get behind door number two? Every household should have a feminine and a masculine parental presence for the betterment of the children. If you find a good man that can lead your family in a good direction then let him lead. Instead of saying we can't do it, say to yourself, in what ways can we make this happen.

Polygyny is not for every man, especially a lot of the so called men we have out here today. A man who chases woman, chased you, and ain't about his business, possibly isn't a good candidate for polygyny. A man's ethics, discipline, and moral character is a good indicator to his qualifications. My advice is not to enter a polygynus relationship with a man who goes out in seek of another wife. If your holding it down, and he's not satisfied with just you, then maybe he shouldn't be with you. Maybe he's greedy and lacks discipline. If I didn't connect with my Queen on a mental(first) and physical level(second) which leads to the spiritual level I wouldn't be with her. I'd feel like I was missing something and may be swayed later. The bond between him and her should be established first. Under those criterias, one way I would enter a polygynus relationship is if I met a woman, who expressed to me that she wished that there was someone with my standards that she could start a family with. I would evaluate whether she held the same values as I and my Queen, and if so I would ask her if she would like to meet her. This is under the understanding that I've discussed polygyny prior with my Queen and she understands that it's a duty to her sista, our communities, our people. When my Queen meets her and she agrees that this woman can be a positive addition to our family, then together we can set up some ground rules. Another way would be if my Queen introduces me to a sista who she was comfortable with who shares the same way of life as us but has trouble finding a decent man to build a family with. This would be the epitomy of what I want for my self I want for my sister. Granted I find this sista mentally and physically attractive, I would give at least a three week period where there would be no physical contact between I and the new woman, included within a three month trial period with a slow progression of moving her from her house to our home. I strongly suggest that all parties live under one roof. Not to underestimate our self responsibility, however, we may not yet be ready for that type of understanding. Every participating adult would have to be phenomenal. Therefore, the homes of the each woman and children should be relatively close to one another. With at least two people shouldering the financial responsibilities for all the homes and at least one maintaining the child care duties. If everyone can agree to living under one roof, unless you own a farm, I feel that at least a $52,000 a year income should be coming into the home. Ideally from the man, but with understanding it can be split however. This is just my opinion. With $52,000 a year we may can't live lavishly, but we can live comfortably if we all understand our priorities, family over materialism. Where there's a will, there's definitely a way. Two women is sufficient with a limit of three, four in extreme cases. With an additional $19,200 a year required for each additional woman over two. Having only two to three women gives each three or two days of personal time with their man with one day reserved for himself. Unless the two women have an understanding amongst themselves, a man should be able to take care of both of them if they both don't work to be fair. If not then if one works than so should the other be required. If it's three or four woman, one should be willing to be designated as the home-maker, with her having the power to delegate household responsibilities to everyone else. Plus it's a benefit to have someone always at home to tend to the needs of the children. I feel it's more efficient to be in one household with each adult having their own personal bedroom including the man, with his being the master bedroom. There would be a boys children's room and a girls children's room. All women would be referred to as mom, or umi, from all the children. And all children whether it be from a previous relationship would be considered brothers and sisters to each other and a child to all.

As I stated previously, I am neither pro polygyny nor anti monogamy. It's a real solution to a real situation. Truly I myself had to come to grips with my responsibility towards polygyny. I know how some woman may selfishly and ignorantly feel about it, but it actually is my responsibility. I've asked myself if it mean't not being with my Queen who I love SO much would I still hold my positon? The answer is yes. I figure she loved me for doing the right thing no matter what so why change now. I felt if I didn't because of the way I feel, when I know that it's right, everything I said thus far, about logic over emotions, would be a lie. It's about doing the right thing. For a woman I know it's emotionally hard to come to grips with polygyny, but that's where the principles we established in the first paragraph comes in. Do you truly stand by those principles or are you just blowing hot air? Do you truly stand by those principles or are you just blowing hot air? I ask one more time, do you truly stand by those principles or are you just blowing hot air? Unless you have a legitimate reason, say as there are no good women out there that you can see as your sista, than all you have excuses. You shouldn't be calling your so called sista sista, for she's only your sista to a point. Excuses are mental blocks that can change when if change your mind. I don't expect any changes to be made without a logical reason, but if there isn't enough good men for your sista than that should be logical enough. Especially if the shoe was on the other foot and you didn't have and wanted children. Some women ignorantly(meaning not knowing), ignorantly cite polygyny as some type of orgy affair. I like to think of this as the boogie man syndrome. Meaning like when you were a kid and the boogie man was in your room as long as you can't see the room by putting the blanket over your head than it's okay. Would you rather know and be able to have a say so to who the other woman your man is sleeping with, or would you rather him just hide it from you? Whether you like it or not, a man is going to be a man. Some of you are saying I rather not know. What type of ignorant ish is that? You must don't really know the importance of divine order and knowledge being the foundation. You can't imbrace ignorance and knowledge at the same time. If you don't want to know, I assume you don't ask questions when he stays out all night or you can't reach him on his cell phone. Because if you go looking, eventually you'll find it. So that's b.s. Why would dealing with another woman that you regard as your sister be nasty. In a polygynus relationship, the woman you allow into the family you should already respect her ways, personal hygiene, eating habits, home keeping, child relationship, as you do yourself. If you don't then she is not the one to add on with. As a woman, I understand you personally feel that when your intimate with a man some "essence" of that man remains so being with another man would be nasty. But men are not women. We have an 'outty', you have a 'inny', so we can wash it off and k.i.m.(keep it moving). Besides why would you think negative of your sista, should she think negative of you? If I was dealing with you, and I said the other woman was say Queen Afua, would you think negatively of her. Not that I'm cosigning for Queen Afua because I don't know her personally, I'm just going on how she presents herself. My point is she could think negative of you, at the same time teach you a thing or two. Another deterent is this possessive love that we have. To want your man when you want your man is a selfish way of thinking. Can he have you when he wants you? Understandably not when the red sea is flowing, or when you have to tend to the babies. This is just another way of thinking that can be changed. A quote from Khalil Gibran's book the prophet is for man and woman to eat from each others bread but have your own loaf. Meaning that we should each have our own interest and we come together when we need be. I don't need to or want to possess somebody, nor do I want to be in someone elses possession. If we love each other we can move together in unison without any restrictive rules, for we operate through God's rule, not restrictive rules. The difference between God's rule and restrictive rules is knowledge, wisdom, and understanding to build equality. Through this blog I say MY Queen, but I usually refer to her by Queen and her name, MY denotes possession. Besides, push up on her and she'll let you know who she rolls with. As for being able to share my time, each women would get equal amount of days, with alternating weekends, with one day possible Sunday for myself. My advice to a sista in a polygynus relationship, focus on your happiness and not what he does for the other sista for this breeds jealousy and envy. If one of the Queens has a particularly bad day, whether I'm in a polygynus relationship or a monogamus one, I should be able to pick up on this. If it's not her day to share with me, I'd ask the Queen whose day it is to switch her day, or just her night if need be. If something special is going on that day that that Queen planned, then it may just be the night and I'd spend the day with the Queen's whose day it originally was. If a Queen wants to switch a day with her sista to do something with me, that would have to be an understanding between them. The deterent for abuse would be that one would not want the other to abuse their right to personal time so they would respect their sistas time and only ask when necessary.

How can an original woman submit to an unoriginal way of thinking. Our original reason for a divine union between man and woman was for the benefit of the community. It wasn't just the union between him and her, it was a union between his family and her family for the benefit of raising the children. The extra perks came secondary to the responsibilities. We keep chalking up our short comings as just a matter of circumstances which is b.s., yet we expect other people to change their b.s. We expect our children to be strong against ignorance but we aren't strong against our own. I have my own battles, but I don't down play them as just a circumstance. I recognize my weakness and I attempt to make the necessary mental changes to fight them. I don't say I know what I'm doing isn't beneficial and continue to easily keep on doing it. An unoriginal way of thinking will not help our people for it festers selfishness. You know this. A monogamus relationship works for the caucasian man because they don't have as much if any the disparity of women to men ratio. Polygyny is recognized, respected, and accepted by the majority of non-european nations, and unoffically here in the U.S.. What do you call what Hugh Hefner and some celebrities do? How many men have children by more than woman? How many men are sleeping with more than one woman whether their woman knows it or not? We practice polygyny but we don't want to accept it or call it that. Let's get real people. If it ain't real then it doesn't exist. Monogamy doesn't really really exist, only the illusion of it. Is it that you want that illusion? Is it that you want what they show you on t.v. and what you hear about in story books. Fifty percent of marriges end in divorce, and that's including the remarries. Without the remarries it could be more. If you were raised in a productive polygynus family then you wouldn't be so oppossed to it. We seem more opposed to polygyny than we are to homosexuality. I don't see us giving much of the screw face or the talks behind the back of a gay person than one who is in a polygynus relationship. That's crazy!! A positive polygynus relationship is not what they claim the mormons did, sleeping with underage girls or marrying 10, 20 women. Nor is it what some natives from the continent of africa claim, for some of them have been influenced by european materialism and acquired some unoriginal ways of chauvnism and wind up disrespecting their women. For all you so called christians out there, polygyny was acceptable before the EUROPEAN catholic church banned it because of their lack of women. Check your bibles, see how many polygynus relationship are in there. It was never condemned by your religion, it was banned by caucasian. So your opposition would be due to a european influence and not your original culture. Aside from it not being banned in the bible, if everything is according to God's will, why is there far more available women than available men? Are you implying your infallible God made a mistake? Or is God allowing only some women to have a mate and the rest have to be gay? As far as marriage goes, I would use what I stated in U-N-I verse. With my first Queen, in our affidavit I would leave some room or a clause for revision, or have a clause acknowledging the possibility of a plural marriage, with a percentage going to the new woman in case something happens to me. Then an affidavit between I and the new woman with the abc's and xyz's would be made up. This post is not to say we need to be in polygymus relationship, for all is not qualified for it. This is to open up an intelligent dialogue of it. This is for those who say they are original(black) yet still think like unoriginals and don't make any serious attempts to change that. This is for those who had no idea or pondered with the idea but didn't know how to approach the subject. If you have a noble, honorable, mature brother, or know of one, you may consider it. We just have to many single woman, and not enough good brothers. Maybe this will entice some brothers to get there act together. No fertile woman should not have the right to bear a child with a good man. Every good woman deserves to be with a good man if they're out there, even if it means sharing. What you want for your self you want for your sista. Instead of saying I can't, say we can.
Recommended reading:We Want for Our Sisters What We Want for Ourselves by Patricia Dixon,Ph,D,
Check out the links and give me some intelligent feed back on them and the post as well:
In Africa
Maasai tribe
Polygamy defined
Monogamy Sucks
Polygamy Vs Monogamy


Keyba said...

Well stated. You've given a lot to think about. Sistahs really have to start opening their eyes. It's challenging, yes! This is an emotional issue, yes! But we can no longer afford to look the other way. Our communities cannot survive it. Check out my video blog part 1
thanks for this

usupreme said...

Thank you, finally, for a woman's reply. It seems that I get comments on other blogs from women, but this one they were scared to touch. I just wanted to get some female perspectives on the matter according to what I stated in the blog. Whether it was opposed to or in favor for, I welcomed any comment as long as it was based on rational and not purely emotional. I figured I exposed those who won't look past emotions yet claim they're really about change but aren't. I'm either going to add more to this or do a part two pointing out the illusion of a real sisterhood without polygyny and how polygny is not right because it was once initiated by the women, not necessarily the men, to serve themselves, their sisters, and the community by helping each other with the children, and providing every women with a husband through sharing thereby reducing if not eliminating prostitution, single parenting, fornication, loneliness, and homosexuality. And until women themselves see a personal benefit in it, see a connection with God, and recognize their responsibilities to their sisters and their communities, and also for us as men on a collective step up in our moral character, I don't see any of it happening. Until then, women will accept the contract of selfishness that this society has conveniently laid out to suit their own selfish personal agendas.