The Absurdity of Polygamy: A Look at the Claims of a Dutch Professor

[Monique]

:rofl: I just read this in a dutch newspaper and thought it's hilarious.. is this guy serious?

*edit* apparently a journalist had put the absurd claim into the mouth of the professor, he thereby stands corrected. Explained here */edit*

I translated the article, which can be found here http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/18833701/_Niet_te_moeilijk_doen_over_polygamie_.html, using worldlingo so I'm sorry if some sentences look weird :tongue:

Don't Stress About Polygamy

TILBURG - Polygamy can save the government much money if it concerns subsidised nursery. Love is something from the past which offers absolutely no guarantee on happiness. That puts the Tilburgse professor psychology and health A. Vingerhoets Thursday in Univers, the magazine of the University of Tilburg.

He states that we should not be difficult concerning having several women. This can solve the dilemma child or career. The modern woman runs between partner, children, work and household. She can share these tasks this way with several women. That saves also still much subsidised nursery to the government, thus Vingerhoets in the magazine of the university.

The scientist finds also that love is something of the past. For protection it was for women in former days significant to have a partner. In 2005, that is different. Love is now just like a persons appendix; an useless vestige from the past, the professor says. For your well-being and health you could as well own a house animal.

Moreover the love in the distant future disappears possibly entirely, thus Vingerhoets. But the desire will always remain according to evolution theory, however, since we must reproduce ourselves.

 

[matthyaouw]

How long til he is fired or steps down? Place your bets people!

 

[Norman]

How long til he is fired or steps down? Place your bets people!

He is at a Dutch institute, not an American one. The Dutch are extremely tolerant in my experiences. Plus he probably has tenure- this is what tenure should be used for- not having to worry about whether or not your findings will cause you to lose your job (as long as they are based on some sort of experiment or proof/reasoning of some sort)

 

[Artman]

Forget the fringe benefits, I just can't get past the thought of more than one wife nagging me. :yuck:

 

[Zantra]

Forget the fringe benefits, I just can't get past the thought of more than one wife nagging me. :yuck:

amen.. one's more than enough

 

[franznietzsche]

How long til he is fired or steps down? Place your bets people!

He's at a dutch intstitute.

And as they say, the only things illegal in amerstdam are murder and highway robbery, anything else is fair game.

(Not really, but it sure seems like that. I have yet to find a manifestation of hedonism that is illegal there, not that I've been looking very hard. :uhh: )

 

[Gale]

Personaly, i don't think that makes any sense even scientifically. You really think that a guy with as many wives as he wants is still going to have the same number of kids as with one? no, he'll have like 4 with each wife! Thats more kids for them all to worry about. If you want to save on daycare, legalize polygandry, (one woman mult husbands) Then she can still only have so many kids, but she gets lots of men to help her raise them. That just makes sense! (and sounds much more preferable anyways... )

 

[franznietzsche]

Personaly, i don't think that makes any sense even scientifically. You really think that a guy with as many wives as he wants is still going to have the same number of kids as with one? no, he'll have like 4 with each wife! Thats more kids for them all to worry about. If you want to save on daycare, legalize polygandry, (one woman mult husbands) Then she can still only have so many kids, but she gets lots of men to help her raise them. That just makes sense! (and sounds much more preferable anyways... )

Yeah, great idea, have a bunch of guys all competing to see who's going to get laid tonight.

REAL bright idea

Homicide rate goes through the roof. COnnection? I think not...

 

[Evo]

Personaly, i don't think that makes any sense even scientifically. You really think that a guy with as many wives as he wants is still going to have the same number of kids as with one? no, he'll have like 4 with each wife! Thats more kids for them all to worry about. If you want to save on daycare, legalize polygandry, (one woman mult husbands) Then she can still only have so many kids, but she gets lots of men to help her raise them. That just makes sense! (and sounds much more preferable anyways... )

Multiple husbands make much more sense! :tongue2:

 

[Gale]

Yeah, great idea, have a bunch of guys all competing to see who's going to get laid tonight.

REAL bright idea

Homicide rate goes through the roof. COnnection? I think not...

It'll help decrease the population. Besides... Survival of the Sexiest!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yeah, great idea, have a bunch of guys all competing to see who's going to get laid tonight.

Only for the first few years. After that you have drinking buddies. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

[Artman]

Personaly, i don't think that makes any sense even scientifically. You really think that a guy with as many wives as he wants is still going to have the same number of kids as with one? no, he'll have like 4 with each wife! Thats more kids for them all to worry about.

Also, no matter how many wives he has, he still won't stop and ask for directions when they're lost.

 

[Kerrie]

Only for the first few years. After that you have drinking buddies. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Ivan's got the idea! One husband is plenty for me...more men, more laundry, more times the toilet seat is left up!
:rofl:

 

[Hurkyl]

Won't the "one woman & several men" scenario run into problems when all the men want children? ...

 

[Moonbear]

Won't the "one woman & several men" scenario run into problems when all the men want children? ...

Yeah, that doesn't sound like a very good plan to me. I prefer it as initially presented...it would give those of us who are sure all the good men are already married or taken another chance at them!

 

[franznietzsche]

It'll help decrease the population. Besides... Survival of the Sexiest!

Well, then, i must be immortal

[/shameless self-complimenting]

 

[Gale]

Well, then, i must be immortal

[/shameless self-complimenting]

I think you need to post a pic to back that up... especially if its true...

 

[Moonbear]

Gale and franz, sittin' in a tree...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Won't the "one woman & several men" scenario run into problems when all the men want children? ...

It would be like the good old days when we kept our women barefoot and pregnant for twenty years or so.

I think it would turn many women into black widow serial killers.

 

[franznietzsche]

I think you need to post a pic to back that up... especially if its true...

I've resisted posting a pic here for a long time. Maybe...

It would be like the good old days when we kept our women barefoot and pregnant for twenty years or so.

Ah, one has to miss the good ole days, eh?

Now, where's my sandwhich?

 

[Tsu]

Your sandWHICH? :rofl:

 

[Math Is Hard]

I think he's asking for a "sammich" or in my vernacular, a "sammy". Either way, good luck with that, Ivan. heh.

hmmm.. Gale and Franz... little GaleNietzches...little Franz17s... ok, that could work!

 

[Monique]

How long til he is fired or steps down? Place your bets people!

yeah, well, I don't know why he should be fired or should step down :uhh:

 

[Monique]

:rofl: I was not the only one shocked yesterday, I checked the newspaper and a huge number of people had responded to the article http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/18833701/_Niet_te_moeilijk_doen_over_polygamie_.html But I think in some sense he was right, what is the success rate of marriages? People these days don't really care about staying together anymore like they used to.

 

[Astronuc]

People these days don't really care about staying together anymore like they used to.

Some people that is.

Marriage for me is a lifetime commitment, and I do very much care about staying with the woman I married. That's one of the reasons I got married.

As for Polygamy, and with equal consideration Polyandry, it would seem to be rather impractical, because most likely a hierarchy would develop and that would force some husbands and wives into a subordinate role. Certainly there are examples, e.g. Mormon practice of polygamy, but as far as I can tell, they don't seem all that successful.

Then there would be the issue of property, or community property. How to divide assets, especially in the event of death (inheritance). Divorce could be complicated too.

And then there is the issue of having children, and particularly the relationships of the primary couple during gestation.

Maybe some people can deal with it - but I imagine the vast majority cannot.

 

[Moonbear]

Okay, now that I'm done teasing franz and Gale (though, I still think they might make a cute couple...I'll leave that to them to pursue), I'll address the actual topic.

The primary rationale that was put forward for polygamy seemed to be to alleviate the burden of parental responsibilities on those who need to work by more of a communal living arrangement where the women (he didn't mention the men in this) would sort of have rotating shifts of childcare responsibility for all the children and then could work the rest of the time.

As Astronuc pointed out, the likely conflicts that would arise in the marriage(s) would probably far outweigh any benefit, and it seems if the objective is to take away the burden of finding daycare, there are better ways to go about it.

There's an idea I've had that I've mentioned to others in a joking way, but has some potential to be practical, at least for some workplaces. There seem to be about three major problems I see arising as parents put kids into daycare to return to work.

1) Daycare has only limited hours. All the parents need to leave the office no later than 5:30 PM to pick up their kids by 6 PM. This leaves them very inflexible to stay for an important meeting that needs to be scheduled near the end of the usual work day (it's not uncommon to have a 6 PM meeting for something urgent because it avoids the conflicts of everyone's already fully busy days), and even if they are in the middle of something that would be better completed in one sitting without interruption, they have to drop it and go get the kids. And, if the daycare is closed for a day (school holiday but not a work holiday), the parents need to take a day off from work to stay with their kids.

2) The kids don't see their parents during most of their waking/playing hours when most people agree it would really be good for the parents and kids to interact.

3) It only takes one parent to drop the kid off or pick the kid up at daycare, and it seems there is still a heavy bias toward this being the job of the mother, so all the disadvantages of needing to cut the work day short seem to weigh more on mothers than fathers.

So, what do I propose? Parent-run daycare/babysitting in the workplace. Rather than charging parents for enrolling kids in daycare (a small fee may still be needed to cover supplies and facility upkeep), you have them rotate turns babysitting. And, you include both mothers and fathers to take the burden off just the mothers.

Somehow, I just think it would be more cost-effective to have parents responsible for a half day a week watching kids (of course, for this to work, you'll need a certain critical mass of parents and kids, and it might work best in a medium-sized company than a very small or very large one), when you can schedule for them to be away from their desk, but they are still in the building if you need to ask them an urgent question.

Their kids are nearby, so they can stop into visit to check how things are going or just to get a hug, and are guaranteed to see them a half day every week. If it is common for people to need to work late, you can set up the daycare hours to be more consistent with workday hours, plus, even if they have to pick up the kids at a certain time, there's no travel to get there, so you save at least a half hour a day of travel time, which already makes up for the half day of unproductive time taking a shift watching kids. You may need to supplement the daycare staff with some full-time day care workers, but won't need to hire as many if you have parents helping out too.

Plus, it would foster more of a reciprocal relationship among the parents where it might be easier or more likely that when one parent found themselves in a pinch needed to stay late for a meeting at the last minute, they could call upon one of the other parents they work with to watch the kid for an extra hour, and then return the favor at a later time. This is a lot easier to do if the kid is right there and not off at some other daycare location. It's not so easy to just ask a friend to go pick up your kid at daycare if you can't make it in time, because the daycare won't give the kid to just anyone (rightly so) and they won't have the carseats or booster seats needed since they need to drive the kid somewhere else.

This would probably be even more popular in a place where you had a substantial number of night shift workers, when daycare is generally unavailable and full-time babysitters hard to come by. You could have a place for younger kids to sleep and older kids to get their homework done or play games when they are done with their homework. There are people who need jobs and would take those shifts if they had a place where they thought their kids would be safe during that time.

Is this overly idealistic to think it might work?

 

[Gale]

I think that sounds like a good idea moonbear. I think probably the only problem with it is that some parents, even though they have kids, are really really terrible with kids. My dad works at a big company where i could see something like that working... but i know some of those guys, and i don't know if i'd really trust them with my kids... (if i had any, and no MIH, there are no GaleNietzches or little Franz17s expected any time soon.) You'd still need to have regular child care workers there too.

Also, now that I'm thinking about it, it might help reduce stress levels in the workplace... think about.. you're freaking out cause some report's due, then hey, 11 o'clock, baby sitting time.. ahh, popsticle sticks and paint... much better.

Its a nice idea, i don't know how well it'd work. Either way... i still kinda like the idea of multiple husbands fighting for a spot in the bed... Though apparently franz thinks he's sexy enough to have it every night, we have yet to see if that's true...

 

[Echo 6 Sierra]

Won't the "one woman & several men" scenario run into problems when all the men want children? ...

Easy solution...send 'em all the "nice guys".

 

[Moonbear]

I think probably the only problem with it is that some parents, even though they have kids, are really really terrible with kids... You'd still need to have regular child care workers there too.

Yeah, as I got to the end of thinking it through, I don't think it would eliminate the need for some professional child care workers, which is fine, because I wouldn't want to put them all out of work either, but it would reduce the number needed on-site. I'd think of it more like pre-school where you have one teacher and a bunch of teacher's aides. The teacher makes sure activities are age appropriate, state regulations are complied with, etc., but then the teacher's aides (parents) are there as helpers to make sure you've got the number of adults you need to supervise the group of kids. The thing is, it might also be a benefit to those parents who aren't so good with kids. Since they'd never be alone with the kids (I would think even with a small group, you'd always want at least two adults around all the time), they'd see good parenting modeled for them and would learn how to do that. Afterall, plenty of day care workers are young people who don't have children yet (my sister worked in a day care while she was a social work student) and need to learn from others too. I also think some parents aren't very good at it only because they have so little time to spend with their children and to know what age-appropriate activities are. This would encourage them to be more active with their children.

Also, now that I'm thinking about it, it might help reduce stress levels in the workplace... think about.. you're freaking out cause some report's due, then hey, 11 o'clock, baby sitting time.. ahh, popsticle sticks and paint... much better.

LOL! You might be right there. Heck, it might even encourage some of the childless workers to help out at the daycare a few hours a week! But I think it would reduce stress in another way, which is that parents aren't worried about where their children are while they are out of sight, or worrying about rushing to pick them up from somewhere, or just feeling that anxiety about not spending enough time with their kids. Plus, I notice that people with kids end up socializing a lot more with the parents of the other kids in the daycare or school. This might generally build up a more friendly work atmosphere if groups of parents start to be more social outside of work. I think that's something that parents begin to miss after having children; they can't really get together with co-workers socially like single and childless people do. I think it makes for a very positive work environment if you can go out after work and kick back and relax with your co-workers as you unwind from the day. So, maybe the parents will head to a playground on the weekend instead of to the bar on Friday night, but it's generally the same thing.

I realize there is probably no perfect solution, and this may only work in a utopian society, but I can at least hope.

 

[Evo]

There already are a number of companes that offer on premises day care for their worker's children. They do it to cut down on absenteeism. They hire professional day care workers.

 

[Kerrie]

Some people that is.

Marriage for me is a lifetime commitment, and I do very much care about staying with the woman I married. That's one of the reasons I got married.

As for Polygamy, and with equal consideration Polyandry, it would seem to be rather impractical, because most likely a hierarchy would develop and that would force some husbands and wives into a subordinate role. Certainly there are examples, e.g. Mormon practice of polygamy, but as far as I can tell, they don't seem all that successful.

Then there would be the issue of property, or community property. How to divide assets, especially in the event of death (inheritance). Divorce could be complicated too.

And then there is the issue of having children, and particularly the relationships of the primary couple during gestation.

Maybe some people can deal with it - but I imagine the vast majority cannot.

All joking aside, I have to agree with what Astro is saying. Most people aren't into sharing their partners because trust can get violated, and trust is very precious. I know that when I married my husband, I was making a lifetime committment to him only because of who he is as an individual. Having more then one partner would eventually cause one to "choose" one over the other because of a bond that could develop.

 

[Moonbear]

There already are a number of companes that offer on premises day care for their worker's children. They do it to cut down on absenteeism. They hire professional day care workers.

Oh, I'm aware of those, though they aren't nearly as common as I'd like. But they are also expensive to staff, and you still have the problem of parents not really spending enough time with their kids. So, I'm really just taking that a step further to strike a balance where parents get to interact more with their children. I also like Gail's thought about cutting down on workplace stress by having time to paint and play with popsicle sticks as an added benefit.

Do you have any idea how common such on-site day care is outside of the tech industry? I've heard of it mostly in relation to software companies, where they took on what was at the time sort of a counter-culture family friendly work environment, and I thought it started happening right along with the whole shift to casual work attire as well. I rarely hear of such an option outside of the tech industry though and figured hiring the full-time daycare staff may be too costly for some companies to consider (though, when you look at the increase in worker productivity and reduced absenteeism, I agree, it's very cost-effective; especially if it's something that can be flexible enough to be available on an as-needed basis, like the day your kid's school is closed for snow but you still have to get to work).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think he's asking for a "sammich" or in my vernacular, a "sammy". Either way, good luck with that, Ivan. heh.

I used to tell Tsu that I wanted 8 children. She had her legs crossed for years.

 

[Moonbear]

I used to tell Tsu that I wanted 8 children. She had her legs crossed for years.

LOL! That reminds me of the advice given to one of my college friends by her father. The best form of birth control is one aspirin...held firmly between the knees. :tongue2:

 

[Evo]

Oh, I'm aware of those, though they aren't nearly as common as I'd like. But they are also expensive to staff, and you still have the problem of parents not really spending enough time with their kids. So, I'm really just taking that a step further to strike a balance where parents get to interact more with their children.

I don't think they're very common, unfortunately. I believe that for most (if not all) of these the parent still has to pay, but for the added convenience, it's a no brainer. The parent can spend lunch time with their kids, have more time together before and after work. There are a lot of benefits.

The only problem with the parents alternating working in the daycare is that some parents may not be willing, or be good at it. They really should be trained, qualified, licensed personnel for insurance reasons, if nothing else. Plus, as much as I love my kids, I can't stand children in general. I didn't like children when I was a child and I still don't like them. I would not be a good candidate for caring for someone else's kids. Do you remember my posts about that little boy I nicknamed Vermin?