Most polygynists and polygyny advocates are tarred with the social epithet that they are sexist, selfish, oversexed, etc. If that's true, that's what women want.
The most male dominated "poly" site that I know of is Don Milton's "Christian Marriage." Even that site's readership is overrepresented towards female readers, just not as much as mine, or "Truthbearers.org." I gather all of these "site insights" from looking at Alexa, the only commonly available site for comparing site size, site viewing behavior and demographics. I have no reason to believe that Alexa skews their demographic and traffic volume information in ways that apply unequally to the various sites I will mention today.
If you look at my site, it's demographics are heavily female. Younger female, with kids. Riding that wave I hit yet another "New High" in site statistics today, reaching a "World Wide" ranking of 305,499. That means there are 305,498 more popular sites (blogging or otherwise) across the World Wide Web. In the United States I have flirted for months with the "50 thousands" and today the Modern Pharisee is ranked 56,680th, again meaning there are 56,679 more popular sites in the United States.
I keep mentioning this because I continue to be typecast by my opponents as plowing obscure and worthless areas of belief and doctrine in the Reformed world that no one cares about. As the Pharisee grows, odd objectionable and misunderstood name and all, the site now ranks higher than perhaps every Presbyterian, Conservative (Reformed) denominations websites rolled together. Site rankings are like the Richter scale, A site ranked 30,000th does not have twice as many viewers as a site ranked 60,000th. It has an exponentially larger viewership. The OPC is ranked 128,203rd in this country, the PCA 279,253rd, and the other "Reformed" and "Presbyterian" denominations in the United States are considerably smaller. Thus if you rolled them all together, they might not equal the Modern Pharisee.
So yeah, site rank is not church attendance and I don't pretend that it is, but it reflects comparative interest when it comes to subject matter. Frankly, as a Polygynist Presbyterian, I seem to hold more reader interest than than all of my official Puritan brethren combined. I think this is important because it means the issue is a bigger, nastier crazy relative in the attic than the Reformation would like to admit. So much so that it might be the "crazies" that are keeping the sane relative chained up.
So next up, how would a site compare to the Pharisee and other polygynist sites if it opposed me vehemently on doctrine? Puritan Board? Predominately male. PCA? Slightly female. OPC? Testosterone City. Theologyweb, a site I have been cast out of, reeks of testosterone. Similarly the "Fighting Fundamentalist Forum" a site that approached nearly violent opposition to the idea of polygyny, drenched in male pheromones. Tektonics.org, James Patrick Holding's combative site, is a men's locker room. And so on. Only the PCA seems to attract a slightly female vibe to it's official web site. Everyone else, guy city.
Some other interesting facts. "Pyromaniacs," which is a Calvinist, heavily promoted blog complete with multiple scholarly authors and professional graphics, is far behind your Pharisee in the United States (94,269th) and is about to be caught in the "World Wide" arena. They have all the tech help a blogger could want. They have been known to delete comments I make regarding marriage. Their readership? Older men. Probably overrepresented by clergy.
Verum Serum? Also a blog I have commented on extensively and treated in a way I would characterize as abusive and dismissive. Multiple authors. Tech Savvy (just about anyone is by comparison to me) and choking on the dust rising from behind the Pharisee's camel. Male, older, probably skewed towards lay people, deacons or elders with no kids at home, it is also promoted and possessed of many advantages I don't have. Opposed to polygyny.
To sum all of this up, I think a lot of men are more opposed to polygyny than many women are. Superficially women seem to put up a good fight against it, but I am beginning to believe this is centered around the fear of losing something materially, or being shoved aside as people. If these fears were calmed, and if the social stigma (also another big issue) was not as great, women would more quickly accept polygyny, than men would. It's largely about the counter intuitive culture blinders we have on, regarding polygyny.
Ultimately the biggest losers in polygyny are not the women, as we are told, the biggest losers are men. Lousy men. The "vibe" I have picked up on from these men is the deeply misogynistic feeling that they have a "right" to a woman. The reasoning goes, if a man is married, then it's hands off another woman. Not for her sake, but for the sake of the unmarried man. I'm going to inject, without discussion the idea that there are less "good men" available, than good women. If a "good woman" is willing to share a husband, then bad men have less women to choose from. Maybe none at all. The superficial evidence seems to suggest this is the case. Whatever the public perception, the survey says, women are more interested in polygyny in terms of their actions, than are men.
The most male dominated "poly" site that I know of is Don Milton's "Christian Marriage." Even that site's readership is overrepresented towards female readers, just not as much as mine, or "Truthbearers.org." I gather all of these "site insights" from looking at Alexa, the only commonly available site for comparing site size, site viewing behavior and demographics. I have no reason to believe that Alexa skews their demographic and traffic volume information in ways that apply unequally to the various sites I will mention today.
If you look at my site, it's demographics are heavily female. Younger female, with kids. Riding that wave I hit yet another "New High" in site statistics today, reaching a "World Wide" ranking of 305,499. That means there are 305,498 more popular sites (blogging or otherwise) across the World Wide Web. In the United States I have flirted for months with the "50 thousands" and today the Modern Pharisee is ranked 56,680th, again meaning there are 56,679 more popular sites in the United States.
I keep mentioning this because I continue to be typecast by my opponents as plowing obscure and worthless areas of belief and doctrine in the Reformed world that no one cares about. As the Pharisee grows, odd objectionable and misunderstood name and all, the site now ranks higher than perhaps every Presbyterian, Conservative (Reformed) denominations websites rolled together. Site rankings are like the Richter scale, A site ranked 30,000th does not have twice as many viewers as a site ranked 60,000th. It has an exponentially larger viewership. The OPC is ranked 128,203rd in this country, the PCA 279,253rd, and the other "Reformed" and "Presbyterian" denominations in the United States are considerably smaller. Thus if you rolled them all together, they might not equal the Modern Pharisee.
So yeah, site rank is not church attendance and I don't pretend that it is, but it reflects comparative interest when it comes to subject matter. Frankly, as a Polygynist Presbyterian, I seem to hold more reader interest than than all of my official Puritan brethren combined. I think this is important because it means the issue is a bigger, nastier crazy relative in the attic than the Reformation would like to admit. So much so that it might be the "crazies" that are keeping the sane relative chained up.
So next up, how would a site compare to the Pharisee and other polygynist sites if it opposed me vehemently on doctrine? Puritan Board? Predominately male. PCA? Slightly female. OPC? Testosterone City. Theologyweb, a site I have been cast out of, reeks of testosterone. Similarly the "Fighting Fundamentalist Forum" a site that approached nearly violent opposition to the idea of polygyny, drenched in male pheromones. Tektonics.org, James Patrick Holding's combative site, is a men's locker room. And so on. Only the PCA seems to attract a slightly female vibe to it's official web site. Everyone else, guy city.
Some other interesting facts. "Pyromaniacs," which is a Calvinist, heavily promoted blog complete with multiple scholarly authors and professional graphics, is far behind your Pharisee in the United States (94,269th) and is about to be caught in the "World Wide" arena. They have all the tech help a blogger could want. They have been known to delete comments I make regarding marriage. Their readership? Older men. Probably overrepresented by clergy.
Verum Serum? Also a blog I have commented on extensively and treated in a way I would characterize as abusive and dismissive. Multiple authors. Tech Savvy (just about anyone is by comparison to me) and choking on the dust rising from behind the Pharisee's camel. Male, older, probably skewed towards lay people, deacons or elders with no kids at home, it is also promoted and possessed of many advantages I don't have. Opposed to polygyny.
To sum all of this up, I think a lot of men are more opposed to polygyny than many women are. Superficially women seem to put up a good fight against it, but I am beginning to believe this is centered around the fear of losing something materially, or being shoved aside as people. If these fears were calmed, and if the social stigma (also another big issue) was not as great, women would more quickly accept polygyny, than men would. It's largely about the counter intuitive culture blinders we have on, regarding polygyny.
Ultimately the biggest losers in polygyny are not the women, as we are told, the biggest losers are men. Lousy men. The "vibe" I have picked up on from these men is the deeply misogynistic feeling that they have a "right" to a woman. The reasoning goes, if a man is married, then it's hands off another woman. Not for her sake, but for the sake of the unmarried man. I'm going to inject, without discussion the idea that there are less "good men" available, than good women. If a "good woman" is willing to share a husband, then bad men have less women to choose from. Maybe none at all. The superficial evidence seems to suggest this is the case. Whatever the public perception, the survey says, women are more interested in polygyny in terms of their actions, than are men.
Sphere: Related Content
10 comments:
You are assuming that your site has a lot of traffic because people agree with you. I would not assume that. I would offer that many of your readership don't agree with you, but want to be aware of your activities.
Cat,
I do not at all assume that they agree with me, but a lot of them do.
Being aware of my activities means that my topic is fascinating. A train wreck can be fascinating.
You said :
"Ultimately the biggest losers in polygyny are not the women, ....the biggest losers are men. Lousy men. The "vibe" I have picked up from these men is the deeply misogynistic feeling that they have a "right" to a woman."
Are they indeed "lousy", or are they simply of a lower socioeconomic status than those rich men who are able to attract (and afford) multiple wives?
As a second point, who would qualify as a "bigger" misogynist -
the "loser" with no wife in this situation, or someone, such as yourself, who asserts that "God" permits men to have multiple wives, while women can have only one husband?
Why is it mysogynistic to have more than one wife?
Because you assert that women of the Christian faith can only have one husband, but men are entitled to as many as wives as they like.
This is hardly egalitarian, you simply dress up your misogyny in the guise of religion.
You still don't explain what that constitutes hating women. That simply states things are not egalitarean.
That doesn't mean hatred.
Failure to support equal rights for women is misogyny, pure and simple.
You seem to have respected Sarah Palin in many respects - except, of course, for the fact that she is a woman. To quote you :
"I have been a fan of a "Palinesque" type candidate except not a fan of Palin being that candidate from the get go.
To accept a woman as a leader for someone of such strict Biblical leanings as myself, is a defeat in and of itself.
For that reason I am sure some of you will shout to me that I am a sexist. So be it.
Only because she is a woman do I regard her as a poor choice, in all other ways I greatly respect her as a political figure and candidate ...."
It is not hatred of women, to obey God and realize they have a certain place. Women were taken from man, though as the Apostle Paul said, since then, all come from women.
They are my sisters here on earth, my equals (if I am worthy) in the hereafter. This life is short and women have a certain role to play, as do men.
That role is not leadership. To submit to women as leaders outside their role as parents is a disgrace to men who have abdicated their own role in doing so.
I'm sorry if Biblical Christianity seems hateful to you. I understand that defining gender roles so sharply seems counter to the idea of equality, but playing one role here, for about 70 or 80 years, does not take away from the equality as heirs that all believers will later have.
You said :
"I understand that defining gender roles so sharply seems counter to the idea of equality, but playing one role here, for about 70 or 80 years, does not take away from the equality as heirs that all believers will later have."
Thanks for your promise of equality in the afterlife. Most of us want equal rights, and want them NOW, not in some future fairy land.
Your attempt to portray polygyny as something favorable for women does not ring true, coming from an admitted sexist such as yourself.
Your sexism is simply a manifestation of your misogyny.
You are a misogynist, and as such, you do not deserve one thin dime for your pro - polygyny lobbying activities.
So, you seem to conclude that by believing children should be obedient to parents, that I am a hater of children?
Post a Comment