From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - View original article
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Polyandry article.|
|WikiProject Family and relationships|
|It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.|
I removed this sentence: "With traditional polyandry, the most common source of friction is rivalry between the fathers and their children for the attention of their wife or mother. This causes tension for the already heavily burdened wife." The sentence is biased, poorly written ("already heavily burdened wife") and without any reference, does not belong in the entry. Jessica lp (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Glaring omission here. What about early Mormonism and Mormon fundamentalists? 126.96.36.199 12:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Have Mormons ever practiced polyandry? From my understanding, polygamy is restricted to men having multiple wives. Jessica lp (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Further comment by Anonymous: not it's not, polygamy refers to any way of multiple marriage, regardless of participants' gender. You mean polygyny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Indeed--Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's polyandrous relationships would be an appropriate example of polyandry in America. Nathanbrisk (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
It is a fact that Smith and Young were married to some of the same women (eg: Eliza Snow). However They were never married to the same woman at the same time. After the death of Joseph Smith, Jr. Eliza Snow and some of Smith's other wives married Young. But that is polygyny. Polyandry has always been contrary to the doctrines of Mormonism and the Hebrew commandments upon which they are based. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
The section currently reads: In Canada, Saskatchewan provincial judicial authorities have "assisted, created and sanctioned" polyandry and polygamy. Justification is based upon property distribution and the recognition that simultaneous multiple conjugal unions are specifically allowed, due to section 51 of their Family Property Act. However, there is no determination in their law that polyandry specifically is allowed, rather the statute content is non genderized.
This paragraph doesn't seem entirely logical, and appears to be veiled criticism of the act mentioned, similarly to "slippery slope" arguments employed for many topics. I feel it should either be reworded in clearer language, or else deleted from the entry. I'm not Canadian, and am completely unfamiliar with the act, so I don't feel qualified to alter this section myself - perhaps a Canadian editor could reword this section? Violet Fae (talk) 05:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
yes, formally recognized polyandry-polyandrous marriage-is very very rare. Use George Peter Murdock's Human Relations Are Files or any other big source of ethnographic information and you'll find it is indeed very rare. Don;t confuse "cheating" with recognized marital patterns, perhaps that will help here. This judgement has nothing to do with western POV or bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it absurd to assume that polyandry is "extremely rare" and has been throughout history, when there are clearly millions of women in our own society who are NOT monogamous? Even if polyandry is technically illegal, it's surely not that uncommon for women to have long-term non-monogamous arrangements. I mean, a substantial percentage of women cheat, have children sired by men not their husbands, etc. I think the author may be pushing a bit of a POV agenda here. -Platypus
I didn't know what section to put my comment under, so I put it here. Under 'Human polyandry' it has a description of a quote from page 40 of a book by Walter Wink. I clicked on the link provided in the references/notes section and Wink's quote says, " The women of former days used to take two husbands (but)the women of today (if they attempt this) are stoned with stones (upon which is inscribed their evil) intent." The person who wrote this section of the wikipedia article wrote, "...he is said to have abolished the former custom of polyandry in his country, on pain of the woman taking multiple husbands being stoned with rocks upon which her crime is written."
I don't think the Wikipedia sentence accurately portrays the original quote. If it does accurately represent it, then maybe the sentence should be rewritten in a simpler sentence for someone of my intelligence. The same quote is also used in the Wikipedia article, 'Urukagina'. It is the last sentence in the second paragraph. So if you change this one, then that should be changed as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Is it okay to add informative, stable links specifically related to polyandry here?
I have reverted away from the recent changes by Stevertigo, which took away the short opening para. Without that para, the two distinct fields in which the word is used do not emerge clearly, and the reader (who will only want one of them) is likely to be confused. I've done the same on polygyny. seglea 23:30, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This article seems to say that in biology the term polyandry implies an ongoing relationship. It certainly doesn't always mean that. For example, honeybees are said to be polyandrous because a queen typically mates with multiple males, even though mating is the only interaction that they have (the males go off and die, and the queen goes off and makes lots of babies, using stored sperm for those eggs that she fertilizes). Josh Cherry 04:02, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Can people please use paragraphs? This is very hard to read.
This would seem to be related to partible paternity. I have drafted an article but since it has to be partly speculative (and I say so) I've put it up for the time being http://www.gendys.mcmail.com/partible.htm to save cluttering Wikipedia's server if people don;t like it.
Comments please to firstname.lastname@example.org Chevin 12:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm trying to gather info about polyandry in non human primates, with sources. The stuff about new world monkeys- finding sources to document. Anybody else think it's a good idea to add section on polyandry in other primates/mammals/etc? Sorry if the new edit's a little rough...will try and fix. 22.214.171.124 08:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I have a problem with the wording of the 'non human' great apes sentence. It seems to imply that non human great apes all practice polygyny and are highly sexually dimorphic, when gibbons are great apes, are usually monogamous, and are not very dimorphic at all. Do bonobo males and females count in the chimp category here? Are they polygynous?
-Gibbons are lesser apes, not great apes, so this doesn't apply to them. Phoenix Flower 04:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
-Bonobos mix all sorts of things up and the marriage part of polygamy is probably the thing they do least. They are more matriarchal and probably practice more polyandry than most species expect non-monogamous 126.96.36.199 01:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)rusl
I removed this:
It is neither accurate nor relevant. --Striver 02:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed the table code that was used to encase the citation notice. It is necessary for a single notice since there is no tabular data, and despite claims to the contrary, I have been unable to determine any browser that is negatively affected by the removal of this code. --Kmsiever 19:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
This article is horribly biased and riddled with errors. I think it deserves at least a POV tag. For instance, at the time of this comment, the first sentence reads, "In social anthropology and sociobiology, polyandry (Greek: poly- multi-, andres men) means a female forming a stable sexual union with more than one male." First of all, it ignores the use of the term in ethology. Second, polyandry denotes something very different in cultural anthropology than in sociobiology, and the sociobiological definition is highly controversial within anthropological circles. Third, in anthropology polyandry certainly does not require a "sexual union" ("union" is of course the wrong word, bringing in contemporary Christian connotations). On the contrary, sex is often secondary to marriage, permitting the phenomenon of "woman-marriage." The key fact is often that any child produced by a woman in a marriage is a legitimate child within her particular social context. Cf. for instance McConnell Ginet "Why Defining Marriage is Seldom 'Just Semantics': Marriage and Marriage" in The Language and Sexuality Reader (Cameron and Kulick). Zensufi 00:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I added a POV tag because this article seemed very biassed, and similar concern was expressed on the talk page.
There are a lot of weasel words (and even weasel lists) in here. This article reads like it's trying to advocate polyandry, rather than explain it. The reader does not need a link to every polyandrous species.
(What is "reverse sexual dimorphism"?)
-Haikon 11:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't have feeling that the article is advocating polyandry. I think that when the phenomenon exists it is necessary to explain the conditions when it is likely to exist. This is not the same as saying that under these specific conditions polyandry is better than other mating systems. Reverse sexual dimorphism - in this context - means that females are bigger than males. In mammals (including humans) males are (on average) bigger than females. So if in any mammal species females are (on average) bigger the dimorphism would be "reverse". But I agree that it can be misleading, because in most earth's species (most invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles) females are usually bigger. So we can say that mammals' and birds' sexual dimorphism is "reverse". Maybe it needs clarification in the article. I'll do this. Jasra 21:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
The comments above already declare that the article is biased, but I couldn't help but copy here the line that I found to be the most biased, and even argumentative: "With particular regard to the supposed failure rate of polyandry (and polygamy in general), it is important to note that there are high rates of infidelity and divorce in 'monogamous' societies, so that it is possible to argue that polyandry is not somehow uniquely unworkable." Here the use of the word "supposed," understood to be synonymous with "purported" in this context, creates a biased argument in and of itself. Putting "monogamous" in quotes is done mockingly or cynically, with a sense of irony intended. The author contrasts the rule of one system with the flaws of another, and implies that polyanthry is immune to infidelity and divorce.
The bottom line is that over one third of the section dealing with the controversy of polyanthry is dedicated to its defense. - Andrew (no user name) 7/15/07 6am
Eh..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
There are currently 8 articles on polygamy: Group marriage, Polyfidelity, Polygamy, Plural marriage, Polygyny, Polyandry, Fraternal polyandry, Sororal polygyny, I think we could merge at least the last two.Brinerustle 01:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't ants be classified as polyandrous? I think examples like queen ants and queen bees are more accessible to laypeople (like me) than marmosets, Agile frogs, and polecats. ("Queen bee" is a fairly common household cliché--in the US, at least. i think bees are mentioned only twice in the article the way it is.) does anyone else have an opinion about this?--Jmjanzen (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The text of the main article states:
The Hebrew Bible prohibits polyandry. For a woman to have sexual relations when she is married to another (which would include a situation such as polyandry) would constitute adultery, with the consequences that it would have on her status, as well as of her children from that relationship.
The definition of adultery is to have sexual relations with one who is not your spouse. This contradicts the statement that Polyandry would result in adulterous behaviour. Therefore, we have two separate issues in the above text. One is a statement begging a citation from the Hebrew Bible (theoretically from Leviticus). The second statement is an illogical proof to substantiate the first.
I doubt that there's an explicit statement in the Old Testament banning polyandry, but it was written in the context of a non-polyandrous society, and the legal arrangements specified in it would not appear to allow for polyandry. AnonMoos (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I suggest a section on the Future of Polyandry. There is growing gender imbalance in China and India as parents select the gender of babies and prefer sons. China and India are likely to support polyandry in the future, and polyandry may emerge on a scale never seen before in history.
Some women like strong gender role segregation. Female identity includes being desirable and subordinate to men, and many women will appreciate the opportunity to have their female identity recognised and appreciated. Male identity includes dominating and cherishing women, and polyandry gives the best possible opportunities for men to provide for and cherish women. Some men will prefer a share in a good wife or concubine than exclusive access to a wife of lesser female ability.
Just had a look at the Polyandry page, then went to the Polygyny page. I think that the Polygyny and Polyandry pages deal with sex/role reversed relationships, so I would expect them to have the same sections in the same order. Assuming that we're all in the intellectual-sexual-equality boat together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Do other editors here think it would be worth including a section listing examples of polyandry in popular culture? Off hand, a couple I can think of are:
I am personally not an expert in this area, but there is a list of quotes/citations on polyandry in Africa, Asia, South America, Pacific Islands, but there is not a subsection with quotes regarding polyandry in North American Indigenous tribes. Earlier in the article there is a very brief mention of polyandry being practiced in North American Indigenous tribes, and then there are a couple references to Saskatchewan having family court recognition of polyandry and polygny, but the article leaves open the question of whether this is part of a First Nations tribal law in Canada or it being just a regular Canadian provincial law. I think this area needs to be further defined. I know that Ojibwe (sometimes spelled Ojibway or the Americanized version Chippewa) peoples in Canada and the northern US did have some practice of polyandry. Listing most other continents but leaving out North American Indigenous leaves a hole in the article, especially after mentioning it in the beginning of the article but never following up. Brit Marie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Was not signed in. Here is signed comment.
There is a list of quotes/citations on polyandry in Africa, Asia, South America, Pacific Islands, but there is not a subsection with quotes regarding polyandry in North American Indigenous tribes. Earlier in the article there is a very brief mention of polyandry being practiced in North American Indigenous tribes, and then there are a couple references to Saskatchewan having family court recognition of polyandry and polygny, but the article leaves open the question of whether this is part of a First Nations tribal law in Canada or it being just a regular Canadian provincial law. I think this area needs to be further defined. I know that Ojibwe (sometimes spelled Ojibway or the Americanized version Chippewa) peoples in Canada and the northern US did have some practice of polyandry. Listing most other continents but leaving out North American Indigenous leaves a hole in the article, especially after mentioning it in the beginning of the article but never following up. I'm looking for citations, but others may have expertise in this area. Britly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Britly (talk • contribs) 17:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Your thoughts on removing the following sentence from the introduction: "it has been argued that the practice would raise social and economic issues and the widespread use of the practice would be socially unsustainable, as the certainty of paternity of children born to the woman would be extremely difficult to determine." At present, there is no citation for this claim. There are also two requests for citations in the section of the article titled "Differences of interpretation" that are over four years old. Unless reliable sources for these claims can be provided, I advocate removing all three of these sentences that lack citations.Ctconnolly (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The last sentence in the section "Polyandry in zoology" reads "Paternal investment is often high in polyandrous species." Not only is this claim completely unreferenced, it exactly opposes theoretical predictions. Polyandry is generally associated with sperm competition and hence paternity uncertainty. Hence, all else being equal, polyandry would result in less paternal care. Perhaps this statement refers to a 'niche' interpretation of polyandry (e.g. harem polyandry, if we can call it that), but that should be made clear then. I propose to get rid of this sentence altogether.
By the way, I would advocate turning this page upside down, and make 'Human polyandry' the section (humans are animals!), but I imagine there would be little support for this. I do think it's important to distinguish social and genetic polyandry throughout this page though. Arguments whether polyandry in humans is rare clearly refer to the former. There are plenty of studies showing that a significant proportion of offspring in humans result from so-called extra-pair copulations, and this is clearly an underestimate of the real rate, since not all copulations result in offspring. Humans also show mate-guarding behaviour, which can only be explained through a tendency for polyandry. There are plenty of examples of species that are socially monogamous but genetically polygamous. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Came across the following text in the section "Religious attitudes to polyandry"
Technically speaking Draupadi was married to five different men, though they all were born to the same mother, who had 5 different men to father her children. It is said in GOTHRA or lineage history that they were considered not as biological brothers coming from a same father (Pandu aka Jacob in Bible), because Yuddhishthira was fathered by Dharma, Arjuna by Indra, Bhima by Vayu, Nakula and SahaDeva by Ashvinikumars. They came from different fathers as Pandu could not have kids of his own due to impotency.
I added a couple sentences and a citation using my organism as an example of a species that has a polyandrous mating system. The section I added can be found under the “Sociobiology of polyandry” header. kzyoung (talk) 01:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
The sourced magazine states in their conclusion: So, getting back to my title, “Joseph Smith’s Sexual Polyandry and the Emperor’s New Clothes: On Closer Inspection, What Do We Find?”