The Relations of the Sexes (Duffey)/Chapter 5

WHEN one has carefully considered the various relations which, in different quarters of the globe, the sexes sustain to each other, weighed the amount of happiness and unhappiness of both parties to be found in each of these relations, and considered the ultimate consequences to individuals, to society, and to nations, it seems to me the only true conclusion which can be arrived at is, that the overruling power which created humanity, and established the laws regulating it, intended that it should be set in family groups, of which one husband and one wife are to be the predominant characters.

The strong point of the opponents of monogamous marriages is found in the habits of certain of the brute creation. "Behold," they exclaim, "the male of the domestic fowls; he gathers around him his dozen or twenty wives. The bull is equally polygamous in his nature," and these theorists run through the whole gamut of polygamous creatures in support of their pet theory. Like all special pleaders, they only select such cases as suit their argument, and make no reference to such as would refute it. ​Descending briefly to the same line of argument, let us see what nature really teaches us, if we are prepared to abide by her decisions. Many birds are monogamous. Guinea fowls are mated, each male with a single female. Many wild beasts are monogamous also. Rabbits go in pairs. Therefore, man should be monogamous in his nature. But stop, we have not yet completed our examination. A single cock can take care of a family of twenty hens. The stallion, the bull, the dog, the cat, and many other creatures acknowledge no family relations, but make indiscriminate temporary sexual connections. Therefore, nature evidently indicates that man should be polygamous. But we are not done yet. Bees are polyandrous in their family institutions. One female bee has a multitude of husbands. They are a hardworking, respectable community, worthy in every way to be imitated. Therefore, let every woman have as many husbands as she can obtain. More than this, among bees and certain other insects, the male either dies, or is destroyed, as soon as he has fulfilled his paternal destiny. The bee world is recognized as essentially feminine, and there would be no males whatever if they were not required for the purposes of propagation. Therefore, in all reason, listening to the plain teachings of nature, let us kill our men, since they will not die of their own accord, as soon as a hope of posterity is secured.

Any one of these arguments is just as good as another, and they are all fallacious. The truth is that nature reg​ulates each species after special laws, which affect no other species; and it would be just as reasonable to shut up a bitch in a hive for a queen, and insist on the whole race of dogs making honey, as to try to regulate one species, or even to discover the laws which in this particular, are intended to govern that species, by the laws which are obeyed by another.

But, to put the whole adverse argument in a nut-shell, the plain fact is, that man is not a cock, a bull, a rabbit, or a bee, but a man, and governed by natural laws of his own, which, as he is a higher being in the scale of creation than any of these, are also higher and more complex in their character, and moulded and influenced by mental and moral considerations, which have no bearing at all among the brutes.

Moreover, we do not find humanity in a state of nature even. We were civilized out of that long ago. Our habits of body, our modes of life, our very selves are artifical, and, probably, in many respects differ widely from the standard which we might have attained, if we had lived wisely and conscientiously from earliest times.

We must take men and women as they are, and not as they ought to be, if we are to make any suggestions as to their mutual relations, which will prove of any practical value. Herein lies the mistake of many writers. Most men, in considering these questions, are inclined to take things too much as they are, without any consideration ​of physical possibilities and moral obligations. Most women, on the other hand, create an ideal humanity, and lay down rules for its regulation, with a like want of consideration of human failings and human needs. We are truly fallen from our first estate, and it will neither do to overlook the fact, nor, in acknowledging it, to ignore a like fact, that it is possible for us to make at least an effort to regain it.

It is only by close attention to that "proper study of mankind" of which the poet speaks, that we can arrive at a knowledge of humanity sufficient to justify us in even claiming a knowledge of the laws which are for its observance.

The first lesson that study presents to us is the duality of humanity—the two halves which go to make a perfect whole. And these two halves, the male and female man, are created in about equal proportions. From this fact, it is evident that nature either intends promiscuous sexual intercourse, in which all shall have an equal opportunity for the gratification of desire, or else that each one shall have his or her true and proper mate of the other sex. Certain theorists have declared that when marriage is polygamous, the offspring perpetuates the institution of polygamy by being in a large proportion female. But the statistics of polygamous countries do not show this result. After making allowance for the number of males killed in warfare, the proportion of the sexes is found to be about equal. Thus it results that in polygamous ​countries a large proportion of men must and do go wifeless, that the few may be supplied. Then, to meet the "physical needs" of these unmarried men, a certain class of females must be permitted, who practice a literal if not a legal polyandry. So we see that polygamy, to be successful in a social measure, must be balanced by polyandry.

In this age, and in this country, the casual observer may deem the combatting of the theory of polygamy as almost uncalled-for. But when we remember that within our own national precincts polygamy is an existing, if not a recognized institution; and when we hear, as I have done, men defend it on natural grounds, and say that only arbitrary social laws forbid it, then I think an attempt cannot be made too soon or too earnestly to stifle the idea, before it has time to become more widespread.

I do not think I need make any further reference to the laws of nature, as they are to be learned from the practices of the brute creation. Other advocates of polygamy draw their arguments from the bible. The Patriarchs, they say, had a plurality of wives. Solomon, the wisest of men, had seven hundred, with three hundred concubines in addition. Whatever may be the example of biblical personages, the monogamous character of marriage, as divinely instituted, seems very clear. In the record of creation there is an account of one man and one woman, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his ​mother and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh." Genesis, chapter II, verse 24. Christ repeats this in Matthew XIX, and adds, "Wherefore they are no more twain but one flesh." Again, St. Paul reiterates the same words in Ephesians V, verse 31. These are not the only quotations which might be made from Scripture, showing the general spirit of its teachings. In these quotations, the word wife is used in the singular and not in the plural. A man is commanded to be faithful to his wife, and not to his wives. He is spoken of as being one flesh with her, and not with them.

But, if one studies the bible attentively, he will find that the record there, is, after all, strongly against polygamy, notwithstanding the example of, and the apparent sanction by, certain biblical characters of polygamy. Abraham had one wife, and took, in addition, one concubine. The presence of this concubine bred such disturbances in his household that, to secure peace to himself, he was obliged to commit the dastardly act of sending away this concubine and their child. And, as if the divine retribution had followed this profanation of true marriage, the descendants of this bastard son of Abraham have been the scourge of his legitimate descendants through all the generations, and it is the Arabs—the Ishmaelites—who to-day possess the land which was to be the perpetual inheritance of the seed of Abraham. Could God's curse be plainer, or more far-reaching in its results? Isaac and Rebecca are to this day held up as ​models of conjugal fidelity. Jacob took two wives and two concubines, and the result was that there were quarreling and jealousy among the children of his different wives and concubines; and his favorite son by his most beloved wife was for years lost to him through the treachery of his half-brothers. Surely, the sin which Jacob committed in his polygamous unions, was immediately and seriously punished, since all the most important troubles of his life sprung directly therefrom. In addition to this, the three hundred years' captivity of the Jews in Egypt was indirectly the result of this polygamy, since if they had not been in Egypt they would not have been made slaves; and they would not have gone to Egypt if Joseph had not first been sold there by his envious and jealous half-brothers.

It would seem that Moses, in framing the code of laws for the Jews, only feared that his people might commit the grave error of following their father Jacob's example, and take to wife two sisters, as he had done. Thus he forbade this entirely, Leviticus, chapter XXIII, verse 18. Probably polygamy was so unthought-of a thing among the Jewish nation at that period of its history, that he did not deem it possible that any other form than that already apparently sanctioned by the example of Jacob, would be likely to tempt them.

But it is evident that in course of time polygamy was practiced among the Israelites, having been adopted probably from the same heathen nations whose gods they ​were constantly worshipping. In the book of Judges, in the eighth and ninth chapters, we are told a story which illustrates the practical workings of this plurality of wives and concubines. It is not quite plain whether Jerubbaal or Gideon had threescore and ten legitimate children, sons "by many wives," and one illegitimate son by a concubine. The sequel, however, shows how all these sons, save one, perished at the hands of Abimelech, the bastard, and that out of this wholesale murder grew fierce and cruel struggles for supremacy and revenge, in which many hundreds of men and women perished by the sword or by fire.

The examples of David and Solomon are the most constantly quoted by the bible defenders of polygamy, since they took many wives, and were nevertheless approved of God. But the curse rests even upon them. In David's own household were troubles and contentions, arising from its polygamous character, and the consequent jealousies and heart-burnings of his children by his different wives and concubines.

Solomon, with his seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines, seems to have gained his wisdom by plenty of experience; and out of that experience he says, Proverbs V, verses 18, 19 and 20: "Let thy fountain be blessed, and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; Let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love."

​This same Solomon, who talked so wisely, yet lived so foolishly, died at the early age of fifty-eight years, an old and worn-out debauchee, just when he might, but for his excesses, have been in the full tide of manly vigor. And his sons contended in unbrother-like hatred with one another, and polygamy received again practical condemnation.

It is not necessary to multiply instances of the bad practical workings of polygamy. The Bible is full of them, while its teachings are both directly and indirectly against it.

But, properly speaking, this is all waste of words. That the Bible narrates the social customs of a race which dwelt upon the earth thousands of years ago, and which, in many ways, showed its civilization to be but one remove from barbarism, can be taken as no evidence, by a reasonable mind, that God ordained, or even countenanced polygamy. God has directer modes of speaking to us about ourselves, and making his will understood, than through the example of Abraham or Solomon.

The advocate of polygamy points in triumph to the eastern States and cities, in which the women so greatly outnumber the men; and says that if each man was allowed to take as many wives as he could support, a great social difficulty would be solved. What, then, is to be done in the West, where the men outnumber the women? Shall polyandry prevail? If the argument is good in the case of one institution, then it is in that of the other No; the solving of the problem is done in quite another ​way. It is not my province to work it out here, but I may indicate the manner. Let girls be taught the same measure of self-dependence as their brothers. Then unmarried women will no longer remain idle at home, while the young men, pushing into new fields of industry, go away and leave them husbandless. The same spirit of enterprise would animate them both, and they would go away together, would naturally fall into each other's society, and marriages would as naturally take place. We should no longer have the disgrace of Western cities thronged by thousands of men countenancing and supporting a herd of dissolute women. The women among us would no longer be humiliated by seeing whole ship and car-loads of girls going westward, with the express intent of seeking for husbands. This phase of the social question would right itself; and the very independence of women would, contrary to the predictions of the conservative and short-sighted, result in a greater number of happy homes, and a diminution of profligacy, as a direct consequence of the more equal distribution of the sexes.

The main point to be considered in the inquiry concerning polygamy is, what are its consequences, immediate and remote, upon the men and women who practice it, upon their children, and upon the character of the nation as a whole. These consequences should have a greater influence in determining for or against it, than any other consideration.

​A recent traveller describing the institution of polyandry in Northern India, naively says: "As might be expected, though the men have all the title of husbands, they are in reality servants." Now if this be true of the men when one woman divides her affections and favors between them, is it not likely to be equally true of the women when several of them have a common spouse?

Whatever may be a man's physical capabilities in the marriage relation, it is impossible that he should hold several women in the same esteem as he would a single wife. His wives could not be wives in the truest and highest sense of the term, but only sleeping-partners, and servants to minister to his comfort and ease. In such a family our ideal home is wholly lost-the ideal which we consider, and I believe with perfect reason, the highest upon earth. It is beyond human nature that a man should find several women bound to him in the character of conjugal mates, without feeling his own self-importance to such a degree as would humble women in his eyes: He would become selfish and arrogant, and there could never be that community of feeling, and that identity of interest between the husband and his several wives, that there is when the partnership is a more equal one.

The traveller whom I quoted not long since, gives us the further information that, "strange to say, there is no quarrelling or disagreement in such [polyandrous] families. My bearer, a Mohammedan, was most severe in his strictures, as he naturally tended to another order of ideas. ​But though I made him learn all he could concerning it, he did not even hint at jealousy or disagreement among the spouses." We could never hope for so happy a state of affairs as this in a polygamous household. The women of such households are notorious for their jealousies and heart-burnings. Brigham Young found it necessary to install the inmates of his harem each in a separate house, and even then they proved so unhappy, discontented and quarrelsome, that at one time he threatened to turn them all adrift to shift for themselves, if they did not cease their contentions and repinings. Whether he modified his threat, or whether his refractory wives were scared into seeming submission, I do not know. But, says our polygamous antagonist, everything might be so comfortable, if women would only be more reasonable, and less jealous. That mighty if ! It builds a wall of impossibility across the whole matter. Women will not—it is not in their nature to be one bit more "reasonable," or have one pang the less of jealousy under such circumstances, and all the arguments or compulsion in the world will never put into or out of their nature anything which so much affects their womanliness as these traits. It is an obstacle which has got to be met and taken into account, and cannot be got rid of, except by ignoring the feelings of women altogether. I think a man with three or four average American women for wives, would be likely to find himself in hot water a good part of the time. It is not, I repeat, in woman's nature that she ​should be satisfied with a moiety of her husband's affection and confidence. Even the women of the Orient, who have been brought up in the midst of polygamy, and do not know of any other form of domestic life, have their jealousies, sometimes resulting in tragedies, amongst themselves.

But, temporarily overlooking all this feminine unhappiness, let us see what would be the result upon the feminine character in other respects. All wives are more or less desirous of gaining and keeping the affections of their husbands. The wives of a polygamous union would find their hold upon their common husband very slight indeed. As man is more or less a sensual animal, and perhaps more vulnerable upon that point than upon any other, it would consequently follow that she who could most readily and most perfectly gratify his sensual desires, would stand highest in his favor. Thus, the ambition which would most govern these wives would be entirely of a sensual character, and utterly subversive of their moral natures. As women sank in the respect and esteem of each individual man, so they would sink in the general esteem of the community of men, and would presently drop out of sight altogether, and their places in society, in literature, and in the church, would know them no more. Their intellects would be no longer valued and no longer cultivated. The voluptuous character which they at first simulated in order to be especially pleasing to their husbands, would gradually, yet surely, ​become their real one, as their traits would only be cultivated and developed in this direction at the expense of all others. The husband, believing and knowing his wives to possess such strong sensual natures,—living in fact, for the enjoyment of sensual pleasures, and having no other definite aim in life—would naturally, and, no doubt, justly, suspect them of intrigues with other men, whenever opportunity offered. So they would have to be guarded, and shut within doors for their own safety; and veiled, when permitted, at rare intervals, to go out, lest they should excite the voluptuous impulses of other men who, like the husband himself, regard woman as a means for sensual pleasures. Women would become idle, frivolous, voluptuous and profligate. Their children would receive no training whatever, but would grow up with strong passions and effeminate habits. The whole people, men as well as women, would deteriorate, and the nation would go into decadence, and fall into semi-barbarism.

How do you like the picture? Let me show it to you in real life among the polygamous nations of the east. Is their example a desirable one to emulate? Does it seem for the good of humanity, and does it seem to present, in all respects, the highest phase of development of which humanity is capable?

The great stumbling-block in the way of the advance of Oriental nations is the humiliating position of women, of which polygamy is the most prominent feature. Until ​this is removed, with all its attendant ideas, they can never make a single permanent step towards moral, intellectual, and political progress. They may send their sons to be educated in all the forms of western civilization, but so long as their daughters are kept in ignorance and servitude—that is, so long as one leg is cramped and fettered, they will be able only to hop and hobble.

Mayhew says, and says truly: "That men should multiply their wives that they may not be induced to visit harlots, appears to degrade the institution of marriage, which was not intended for the satisfaction of sensual appetites, but for the continuation of the human species." A consideration of this view of the question ought to be unnecessary in a country which boasts of its Christianity and enlightenment. But, in regarding the subject of the relation of the sexes in all its bearings, it will not do to overlook any points. Still, much of the proper argument against this phase of the question comes in more appropriately under another head, though the principle is the same. I think, however, if women were allowed any say in the matter—and in a properly contracted marriage compact all candid and just people will admit that their happiness should have an equal consideration with that of the opposite sex—and if the alternative was given them whether their rivals should be brought to share the hearthstone with them, or remain unrecognized in the outer world, they would prefer to remain single and superior in their wifely dignity, and ​trust to their supreme opportunities for gaining an ascendancy in the regards of their husbands. It remains to be seen, however, whether any such alternative is really offered them. The point admits of discussion, at least.

There is still another argument which may be made against polygamy. Either the rich alone would monopolize all the women for wives, as being the only class capable of maintaining harems, and thus great injustice would be done to poor men—(and a principle can only be a right one which works to the advantage of all classes alike);—or each individual wife would have to maintain herself and children. This latter supposition is contrary to the whole spirit of the marriage institution. In this compact the man engages to provide for his wife and children, while the woman gives up to him, in the care of his household, and in the giving birth to and rearing of his family, that time and strength which, being unmarried, would easily yield her a livelihood. Any other principle is an unjust one. A woman should not be bound in any case whatever, unless it be the exceptional one of ill-health or misfortune on the part of the husband, to use any of her time or goods, no matter how much of the latter she may possess, towards the maintenance of her husband and their common children. She gives all and receives nothing, unless return is made in the form of protection and support. A woman, who is a wife, owes her husband nothing, for she risks her health, comfort and even life, for his sake, in the very entering of the con​jugal relations. If she is a mother, she is doubly free from indebtedness. Thus, a state of society in which mothers would be systematically obliged to be self-and-family-supporting would be radically unjust and wrong. The next step, and a most natural one, would be perfect idleness on the part of the husband, and his subsistence by turns on each of his hard-working wives. That polygamy is susceptible of this abuse can be proved by facts. In India, where the Brahmin caste ranks above royalty itself, a member of a certain class of Brahmins, who are as poor as Job in his most poverty-stricken days, sets out on a pilgrimage. On his way, when he desires a resting- and recruiting-place, he stops and marries a wife. His caste makes him a welcome son-in-law in any family. Besides being given a wife, he is loaded with presents. After remaining a short time, he resumes his pilgrimage, and proceeds until he again needs rest and money. Then he takes a second wife after the same manner as the first. And again, his purse replenished, he goes his way. The number of his wives depends upon the length of his journey, or, rather, orbit, for his rounds are periodical. After a long interval, he visits his first wife, who, with her family, receives him with open arms and every demonstration of joy. He is fed and clothed, and loaded with presents, and sent on his way rejoicing to the home of his second wife. He is never expected to contribute in any manner to the support of these wives, but, on the contrary, depends wholly upon them and their families ​for a maintenance. He also repudiates their children. Thus, without being burdened in any way with family responsibilities, he leads a careless existence and fares sumptuously.

Brigham Young, we are told, requires habits of the greatest industry from the members of his somewhat extensive harem, and encourages, and in fact, compels them to be self-supporting as far as practicable.

I cannot help feeling that any institution which is liable to make married women, as a class, labor for self-support and the support of their children, is unquestionably a wrong one. Women, who would properly fill the maternal office, must not have the heavy care and responsibility of money-producing labor thrust upon them in addition to their other duties. They and their children will be the sufferers. The utmost kindness and care of which a man is capable, will alone repay the woman who accepts and undergoes the pains, perils and responsibilities of wifehood and motherhood.

There is one fact in the history of the world which should not be overlooked by the student of social science, in this study of the true aspects of polygamy. Polygamous nations almost invariably display the characteristic of a want of life. Their men are idle, unenergetic, opposed to action of body and mind, and prefer to sit quietly at their ease, just as the nations to which they belong have sat inertly through the ages, making no social, scientific or religious progress. The conquering nations ​of the world are almost invariably monogamous in their social institutions. It was the strictly monogamic northern barbarians who swept down upon and overran the profligate Roman nation, which, in its social institutions, had become practically polygamous in the days of its decadence.

Among the Mohammedan peoples, those who display the most energy and activity—like the Arabs, the Tartars and the Turkomans—are those, who, while, perhaps, acknowledging the polygamous phase of their religion, are yet practical monogamists. Is there no lesson to be learned in this fact?

As a concluding, and one that ought to be a conclusive argument, against polygamy, women are utterly opposed to it; and their wish and will in this matter, as it so immediately concerns themselves, should be regarded as law.

Can we then, in view of all these drawbacks, still maintain the desirability of polygamy in the conjugal relations? We can see how it works injustice to women in many ways; how it degrades both men and women; how it exalts the sensual impulses above all others, and by recognizing them as paramount, gives them a larger license than in any other form of social institutions; how it destroys the home, and weakens the family, and how it will ruin the state. In view of these facts, which do not admit of a question, with all the evidence before us, can we, and shall we, one moment, whether we are men or ​women, desire polygamy as a means of escape from seemingly graver evils? We may be sure the door lies not in this direction; so let us remain forever shut in with our troubles, rather than consent to accept this terrible alternative.